The Evolution of Remote Sensing Education in Canada’s Universities and Colleges: Decades of Innovation and Expansion

Abstract

During the rapid development of remote sensing technology and applications in the 1970’s in Canada, the Canadian Advisory Committee on Remote Sensing conducted a nation-wide review of relevant activities in post-secondary teaching and research. This was updated in the 1980’s. Similar reviews were solicited for the radar community in 2009 by the Canadian Space Agency and for the Geospatial community in Canada in 2016 by Natural Resources Canada. In this paper we report on a new Canadian survey conducted in 2021 which is discussed within the context of the previous profiles. In Canada today there are 65 post-secondary institutions directly involved in remote sensing teaching and 63 academic research centers in this field. At these institutions and others worldwide, significant changes were brought about in education practice in the spring of 2020 with shutdowns in many sectors of the economy in response to the rapid expansion of the COVID-19 virus. Classroom teaching transitioned to on-line communication. These experiences may have a direct influence on how teaching and training practice of ‘hands-on’ disciplines such as remote sensing may evolve and contribute to future growth. We discuss the potential impact of this upheaval for the future of remote sensing education within the remote sensing community in Canada based upon personal experience.

RÉSUMÉ

Au cours du développement rapide de la technologie et des applications de la télédétection dans les années 1970 au Canada, le Comité consultatif canadien de télédétection a effectué un examen national des activités pertinentes en enseignement et en recherche postsecondaires. Cet examen a été mis à jour dans les années 1980. Des examens similaires ont été sollicités pour la communauté radar par l’Agence spatiale canadienne en 2009 et pour la communauté géospatiale par Ressources naturelles Canada en 2016. Cet article présente les résultats d'une nouvelle enquête canadienne menée en 2021 laquelle est abordée dans le contexte des études précédentes. Au Canada aujourd’hui, il y a 65 établissements postsecondaires qui participent directement à l’enseignement de la télédétection et 63 centres de recherche universitaires dans ce domaine. Dans ces établissements et dans d’autres dans le monde entier, des changements importants ont été apportés à la pratique de l’éducation au printemps 2020 avec des fermetures dans de nombreux secteurs de l’économie en réponse à l’expansion rapide du virus COVID-19. L’enseignement en classe est passé à la communication en ligne. Ces expériences peuvent avoir une influence directe sur la façon dont la pratique de l’enseignement et de la formation de disciplines « pratiques » telles que la télédétection peuvent évoluer et contribuer à leur croissance future. Nous discutons de l’impact potentiel de ce bouleversement sur l’avenir de l’enseignement de la télédétection au sein de la communauté canadienne en nous basant sur nos expériences personnelles.

Introduction

In the five decades since the launch of Landsat 1 (originally ERTS-1) in 1972 there has been dramatic development in the scope and depth of remote sensing education in Canada. This growth has paralleled that of the engineering innovations in Canadian remote sensing technology such as Radarsat, image processing systems by PCI, and the MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates transportable receiving stations, amongst others.

Periodically there have been reviews of the state of remote sensing educational resources. In Canada there was a national review in the 1970s sponsored by the Canadian Advisory Committee on Remote Sensing (CACRS) that resulted in a government report (Bonn and Howarth 1986). For a North American perspective, L. Nealey published a journal paper in 1977 that included both US and Canadian remote sensing educational courses (Nealey 1977). In 2008 the Canadian Space Agency solicited a report on “An Inventory of Canadian Universities Active in Radar Remote Sensing” (Werle and Ball 2008; Werle and Aubé 2009). A cross-Canada profile dedicated to geomatics was published by Natural Resources Canada in 2016 (Natural Resources Canada 2016).

In 2021 and early 2022, the educational system itself was rapidly changing internationally in response to the COVID-19 threat. Many university classes were canceled, and the remaining courses were moving to increasingly innovative on-line venues. In the fall of 2022 students were returning to campus but some on-line teaching is still offered after Deans have recognized the flexibility of scheduling and opportunities for new teaching techniques. However, they also recognize that there is not a single pedagogical model emerging and there are many issues that must be addressed for an on-line environment to be fully effective. Students are also demanding ‘value for money’ after months of being isolated in their rooms with little of the necessary personal discussion with their faculty and each other. The academic community may be at the crossroads. In the future, this experience may provide an opportunity for innovation in teaching and training.

Within the context of these changes, this is an excellent time to document the growth of the remote sensing educational offerings as a measure of our success in Canada and as a benchmark for future evolution. In this paper we summarize the existing nation-wide reviews of the Canadian remote sensing educational offerings since the 1970s and assess the drivers of change throughout that period. We add to this temporal transect with a nation-wide assessment of post-secondary resources and activities conducted in 2021 through a survey sent to individuals at colleges and universities and a review of institutional web pages. Lessons from comparable international pedagogical studies are examined.

In this paper we build upon a recent survey and analysis by Chasmer et al. (2021) which assessed the needs of the remote sensing industry in Canada over the next 5–10 years. The authors also identified the teaching issues that need to be addressed to meet those needs. In the analysis of this paper, we examine the development of capacity in the Canadian educational system to respond to the important questions raised by Chasmer et al. (2021).

Highlights of The Historical Development of Remote Sensing Education in Canada

Prior to the launch of Landsat 1 in 1972 the space policy for Canada was largely focussed on space science and space technology. These developments were in support of measurements of the upper atmosphere below satellite level (Chapman et al. 1967). Within universities Chapman et al. (1967) reported that there was “some interest… in the subject of the environmental sciences as they apply to space.” They suggested that the universities were to play an important research role in many of the future directions of space-based activity in Canada that were becoming evident.

Subsequently, the need for continued support of space research by the government and the role of knowledge creation was emphasized by Minister Jeanne Sauve (1974) in a Memorandum to the Cabinet of the Government of Canada. The rationale for a formal “Canadian Policy for Space” that would guide domestic and international space activities included the “…maintenance of Canadian independence, interests and sovereignty in such vital areas as internal communication, and remote sensing,…”. The Cabinet Memorandum envisaged that “application programs can be foreseen in many areas including multiple access, two way, point-to-point communications, direct broadcasting, weather forecasting, aeronautical and marine navigation, search and rescue, remote sensing of resources and environment factors, and surveillance of Canadian sovereign territory. Canada for reasons of geography and demography is destined to become a large user of space systems.” (Sauve 1974). Thus, the importance of remote sensing activity within the government of Canada was clearly identified and its usefulness further recognized.

Within this context it may be argued that the 1972 launch of ERTS-1/Landsat 1 was a critical catalyst that jump-started Canada’s enviable reputation in remote sensing. In a recent review of the “Landsat Legacy” Goward et al. (2022) noted that “As the world’s first digital land-observation satellite program, Landsat missions laid the foundation for modern space-based Earth observation and blazed the trail in the new field of quantitative remote sensing”. In Canada the evolving remote sensing reputation arose out of the strong photogrammetric and aerial photography roots that had been developed prior to the launch. Selected examples include the recognized photogrammetric program at the University of New Brunswick that was nurtured by Professor Gottfried Konecny from 1959–71. In 1965, Dr. Arthur J. Brandenberger joined the Department of Forestry and Geodesy at Laval. He organized several international surveys in post-secondary education in aerial photography and photogrammetry for the International Society for Photogrammetry (Brandenberger 1966, 1980). An innovative trans-disciplinary initiative entitled the “Interuniversity Course on Integrated Aerial Surveys” was developed in 1970 by Dr. Deiter Steiner (University of Waterloo), Stanley Collins (University of Guelph), Dr. Philip Howarth (McMaster University), and Dr. Jaroslav Vlcek (University of Toronto). This fostered the skills of many of the individuals that can be recognized as leaders in the subsequent development of the Canada Center for Remote Sensing (created in 1971, Ryerson 2020). They included Tom Alfoldi, Bill Bruce, Josef Cihlar, Mike Kirby, Bob Ryerson, John Crawford, Howard Turner and Vern Singhroy amongst others. Keith Thomson, then at the Canada Center for Inland Waters and who later joined CCRS and Université Laval contributed lectures.

The First Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing was held in 1972 in Ottawa with an impressive representation by Canadian academics, many of whom were instrumental in the development of the educational profile of remote sensing in Canadian institutions over the following years. Those presenting included:

• Ferdinand Bonn, Université de Sherbrooke.

• Stanley Collins, School of Engineering, University of Guelph.

• Peter Crown, Soil Research Institute, University of Alberta.

• Eugene Derenyi, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick.

• Robert B.B. Dickison, Forestry, University of New Brunswick.

• Philip Howarth, Geography, McMaster University.

• Andrzej Kesik, Geography, University of Waterloo.

• Jane Law [Irvine], School of Engineering, University of Guelph.

• Dick Protz, Land Resource Science, University of Guelph.

• Dieter Steiner, Geography, University of Waterloo.

• Marc Tanguay, Génie Géologique, Ecole Polytechnique, Montréal.

Dr. Larry Morley, who was the founder and first Director General of the Canada Center for Remote Sensing, provided leadership in the development of this symposium. It has been held on a regular basis (now yearly) since then and the 44th Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing was held in 2023.

In the same year, the Interuniversity Course on Integrated Aerial Surveys group noted previously wrote a proposal for an Ontario Center for Remote Sensing. This led directly to the establishment on September 18, 1973, of the Ontario Center for Remote Sensing as a department within Natural Resources under the direction of Victor Zsilinszky.

Ferdinand Bonn of the Université de Sherbrooke and Guy Rochon of Laval University in Québec City founded L’Association Québécoise de Télédétection (Quebec Association of Remote Sensing) in Quebec City on November 28, 1975. This private, multidisciplinary, nonprofit, French speaking association (https://laqt.ca) had the goal to promote the development of remote sensing in its essence as well as in its uses. It continues to act as a Quebec Earth Observation hub.

Other academics from this early era who helped to develop the University programs include, with apologies to any inadvertently left out (currently available dates of activity in brackets):

• Dr. John Parry, McGill University (1963–1998).

• Dr. Allan Carswell, York University, Physics (1968–present).

• Dr. Ferdinand Bonn (Université de Sherbrooke 1969–2006).

• Dr. Philip Howarth (McMaster, 1967–1983, University of Waterloo, 1983–2006).

• Dr. Ellsworth LeDrew, University of Waterloo, Geography (1977 – Present).

• Dr. John Miller, York University, Physics, CRESTech (1971–2008).

• Dr. Wooil Moon, University of Manitoba, Geophysics (1979 – Present).

• Dr. Peter Murtha, UBC, Forestry (1975–2003).

• Dr. Richard Protz, University of Guelph (1966–2001).

• Mr. Stanley Collins, University of Guelph, (1958–1986).

• Dr. Peter Crown, University of Alberta (1970s–2002).

• Dr. Roger Pitblado, Laurentian University (mid-1970s).

The first PhD awarded in remote sensing applications in Canada was awarded to Dr. Bob Ryerson in 1975 by the University of Waterloo. The first Canadian to earn a PhD in remote sensing applications was Dr. Peter Murtha who earned his degree at Cornell a couple of years earlier: he joined the faculty at UBC in 1975.

Role of the Canada Center for Remote Sensing in Post-Secondary Education

During this period of unprecedented development, Dr. Larry Morley, Director-General of the Canada Center for Remote Sensing (CCRS), saw value in the development of a national remote sensing training institute to teach the science and application of remote sensing. He saw this as a means to develop Canada’s reputation internationally, as well as support the growth of exports that was anticipated by the nascent industry. At Dr. Larry Morley’s suggestion, Dr. Deiter Steiner and Mr. Stanley Collins (with help from PhD student Bob Ryerson) prepared a draft proposal in the early 1970s similar in intent to the highly successful ITC in the Netherlands (Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation of the University of Twente (https://www.itc.nl/education/)). The ITC has since become what Dr. Larry Morley had envisioned for Canada – a key player in technology transfer, training and education of students in economically developed as well as less developed countries with over ten thousand mapping, GIS and remote sensing graduates to date (Ryerson 2020).

Dr Bob Ryerson (who later joined CCRS) learned that the concept was quashed after two provinces objected to the concept since the federal government was perceived as entering into education, an area of provincial jurisdiction. The difficulty with provincial jurisdiction in education trumped the federal initiative and so the concept of a training institute languished. This misfortune had a long-lasting impact on the relations CCRS had with academe. When the Applications Division was begun in 1973 for example, scientists were encouraged to avoid any but necessary contact with academe: the British North America Act of 1867 was given as the reason (Ryerson 2020).

Nevertheless, CCRS did provide a considerable range of ongoing resources for academic initiatives. They included:

• The RESORS library system: (Remote Sensing, ‘On-Line Retrieval System’) was an integrated indexing and computer-based searchable retrieval system concerned with the instrumentation, techniques and applications of remote sensing, photogrammetry, image analysis and GIS (Geographic Information System). This was the first searchable data base on remote sensing, and one of the first such searchable data bases on any topic.

• CCRS sample imagery, often with interpretations and explanatory notes, was made available for the cost of reproduction for universities and colleges.

• Airborne imagery and reports: Every project carried out by the CCRS Airborne Program for a user required that a report be prepared to document what the project objectives were, what data were acquired, the results, and in general terms the benefits of doing the work. The reports also contained the flight parameters, flight maps and the means of accessing the imagery. These reports were often used by academics for teaching purposes and/or research.

• Slide Sets from Application Projects: By the early-mid 1980s when Jean Claude Henein became Director of the Applications Division, the application scientists were required to prepare slide sets documenting their projects. These sets were then added to the RESORS data base and were widely used in academe and in training materials.

Earlier in January 1972, the Canada Center for Remote Sensing established the Canadian Advisory Committee on Remote Sensing (CACRS) to “…effect the development of a national program in remote sensing” (CACRS Reports 1973–1985, p 1). This committee brought together all interested parties in remote sensing across Canada in education, industry and government. The intent was a pioneering effort to bring the widest possible range of expertise to bear on the agenda of the government’s (i.e., CCRS) future activities.

There are several references to development of an Educational advisory activity in various CACRS reports.

• CACRS 1975 Report: Section 9.8 on “Training” provided discussion as to what CCRS could or could not do with respect to training.

• CACRS 1976 Report: This document contains a "Report from the Committee to Investigate the Need for the Establishment of a Training Center in Remote Sensing in Canada." The Committee recommends "that a new Working Group on Education be created by CACRS to include representatives from universities, colleges and regional centers." The specific charge was:

CACRS should establish an ad hoc inter-disciplinary committee to investigate the need for a Canadian training centre for the analysis of remotely-sensed data versus the presently available training facilities. The committee would investigate the level of demand for such a centre and present the results of its work, including recommendations for implementation, to a future meeting of CACRS. (Section 8.2.2 1976 CACRS Report)

The CACRS authors recognized:

In the near term, short courses provide a mechanism for the rapid transfer of technology which helps to turn established scientists into specialists in remote sensing. Such courses encourage the maintenance of professional standards and offer a mechanism by which specific regional problems can be solved.

Over the long term, the universities and colleges of advanced technology will deserve much more of our attention because they will provide our next generation of scientists, hopefully armed with sufficient theoretical knowledge for them to carry out useful research in their several disciplines. (Section 8.2.5)

• CACRS 1977 Report: In the recommendations, under the heading "Training and Education" it was again proposed that "an ad-hoc committee on the role of education in the national remote sensing program be established for a two-year period under the chairmanship of Dr. Philip Howarth. The recommendation was passed by the CACRS delegates.

• CACRS 1978 Report: The 7-page report of this ad-hoc committee entitled "Report of the CACRS Ad-hoc Committee on the Role of Education in the National Remote Sensing Program" was included as Section 8.1 of that document. From the initial survey, the authors noted:

Remote sensing is … located in the environmental disciplines. In most cases, a university will have no more than one or two environmental scientists who have made remote sensing their forte. Although a majority of remote-sensing courses appear to be offered in departments of geography, specialists can also be found in forestry, geology and soils, as demonstrated by the membership of the ad hoc committee. The disparate nature of these environmental scientists has led to little previous co-operative activity. (Section 8.1.8 1977 etc.)

• CACRS 1979 Report: The Working Group on Education reported on what had been done to collect information for a "Directory of Remote Sensing Programs in Canadian Educational Institutions." The survey results were not reported in the CACRS document; however, the committee recommended several actions based upon the experience of the members:

(Section) 8.1.14… CACRS might help teachers and researchers in universities and colleges make a larger contribution than at present to the national remote sensing program.

These are as follows:

8.1.14.1 NSERC. It is recommended that the Chairman of CACRS write to the President of NSERC to

a) Emphasize the importance to the national remote sensing program of funded university research in remote sensing,

b) Ask for the establishment of an NSERC code category for remote sensing, and

c) suggest that remote sensing investigations be included within the "Strategic Grants" category.

8.1.14.2 Support. It is recommended that the Chairman of CACRS actively encourage CCRS to continue and expand its support in kind of university research by:

a) Ensuring that special pro-rated costs be implemented in the acquisition of airborne data for university research,

b) Maintaining the policy of free access to CCRS analysis equipment for use in projects approved by CCRS, and

c) Aiding in the support of university remote-sensing programs by all appropriate methods.

8.1. 14.3 Grant. CCRS should act upon, and not just “consider" the recommendation of the April, 1978 CACRS meeting for "the establishment of a grants system, to assist universities conducting remote sensing courses to purchase remote sensing products, similar to that in effect at NAPL (ed. National Air Photo Library)", and have it implemented in the 1979–80 fiscal year.

8.1 14.4 Research Funds. In view of the limited research funds at present available to remote-sensing specialists, it is recommended that CCRS give "Announcements of Opportunities" on a regular basis (at least once a year), thereby permitting the university research community to act on these announcements. CACRS should also request specialty centres and other government agencies to take similar action, if possible.

8.1 14.5 Equipment. In view of the costs of equipment, it is recommended that, whenever possible, the facilities of regional monitoring centres be used for the dual purposes of monitoring and training. The positioning of such centres in close proximity to existing educational institutions would be appropriate.

8.1 14.6 Training. In view of their commitment to and expertise in teaching, it is recommended that university and college instructors be involved as much as possible in remote-sensing training courses and workshops for Canadian and overseas scientists.

8.1 14.7 Working Group. To provide on-going information to CACRS on matters related to education in the national remote sensing program, it is recommended that a CACRS Working Group on Education be established. The Working Group members should consist primarily of representatives from post-secondary institutions. (Section 8.1.14)

• CACRS 1980, 1981, and 1982 Reports: There appears to be no mention of the CACRS Working Group on Education in these reports although, in 1982, there was a note that there had been delays in the completion of the survey, but it was anticipated that it would be completed in the summer of 1982.

• CACRS 1983 Report: In 1983, however, things were happening behind the scenes. The Working Group was re-energized in 1983 and Dr. Ferdinand Bonn, of the Université de Sherbrooke, was appointed as Chair. The university was given a grant by CCRS to produce the bilingual Directory.

• CACRS 1984 Report: Included in the 1984 minutes was a short report entitled "Rapport du Groupe de Travail sur L’Education" announcing that Ferdinand Bonn had been appointed Chair of the Working Group.

One author of the current paper was a member of this committee and there exists a draft report (Bonn and Howarth 1986) with a cross-Canada survey that was produced in 1986 with limited distribution, but a final report version cannot be found. The report is composed of two parts. The first is an overview of the activity of the working group and a summary of remote sensing education at universities and colleges by regions of Canada. The second is a detailed listing of the results of a survey of remote sensing courses (undergraduate, graduate and certificate) and personnel at those institutions. This survey was first sent out to individuals in the universities, and subsequently, due to a less than adequate return, to University Presidents in an effort to encourage a wider representation.

The committee produced a listing of “The major Remote Sensing education programs in Canada” at that time (1986) which were:

• Nova Scotia Land Survey Institute.

• Université Laval/Université de Sherbrooke.

• University of Waterloo.

• University of Alberta.

• University of British Columbia.

For many academic administrators at other institutions with an eye on institutional development, this list with a limited membership would have been controversial.

1980’s: A Decade of Significant Institutional Development

In response to a variety of external political and economic forces as well as competition for significant funding calls, there was a substantial number of centers created in this decade that fostered a global presence for Canadian remote sensing expertise.

Le Center d’applications et de recherches en télédétection (CARTEL) was created at the Université de Sherbrooke in 1985 as a consequence of the initiative by Professors Ferdinand Bonn, Jean-Marie-Dubois and Hugh Gwyn. It became “…one of the most important university research centers in Canada in the field of remote sensing. “(https://www.usherbrooke.ca/geomatique/recherche/center-de-recherche-cartel/ with the”…only accredited "remote sensing" PhD in North America” with 100 PhD graduates between 1990 and 2023. At the time of this writing, it supports fifteen research members, six professional staff, approximately five post-doctoral fellows, approximately thirty PhD students and thirty MSc students.

In 1986, the Nova Scotia Land Survey Institute (NSLSI) was renamed the College of Geographic Sciences (COGS) as a publicly funded training college under an act of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_Geographic_Sciences). It is now the Center of Geographic Sciences at the Annapolis Valley Campus of the Nova Scotia Community College. The remote sensing program component within the NSLSI was established in 1977 by John Wightman and Ernie McLaren. It was one of the earliest educational institutions with an in-house Canadian DIPIX image analysis system and associated training (Note that this DIPIX company from Ottawa is not the DIPIX currently found on the web. The current DIPIX company was founded in 2015 and is in a different discipline).

A significant initiative at this institution was the parallel development of Geographic Information System training which was a suggestion of Dr. Roger F. Tomlinson and implemented under the leadership of Dr. Bob Maher (Ryerson 2020). This was an evolving discipline which, by this initiative, provided training using remotely sensed information integrated with an abundance of other spatial data. The consequences of this far-reaching insight will be clear in the next section with the development of geomatics in subsequent decades.

The number of remote sensing graduates at COGS over the years is about 325 as of this writing.

COGS also offers a joint M.Sc. with Acadia University through the Master’s of Science in Applied Geomatics.

The Institute of Space and Terrestrial Science (ISTS) was inaugurated on June 19, 1987, at York University as one of Ontario’s first Centers of Excellence. ISTS was renamed Center for Research in Earth and Space Technology (CRESTech) on September 24, 1997.

It is notable that Dr. Larry Morley was a significant driver of the ISTS proposal and its first Executive Director. Major remote sensing components of ISTS were housed in the Earth-Observations Laboratory and the Artificial Intelligence and Image Analysis Laboratory. This brought remote sensing scientists of York University and the University of Waterloo together on significant collaborative projects.

The Partnership with Geomatics Beginning in the Late 1990’s

A major step in the evolution of the discipline of remote sensing has been the acknowledgement that an integrated understanding of all aspects of the landscape under study is necessary for the spatial pattern recognition and technical imaging developments to have meaning in the applied sense. The integration of remote sensing with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the global availability of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) data has proven to be a catalyst for sophisticated landscape analysis including the application of artificial intelligence. When approached with skills that include “intuition, imagination, and memory with concise logic and rigorous method” (Desjardins 1988), the community has a powerful arsenal of analytical tools. This integration has become known as Geomatics or Geospatial Information (Natural Resources Canada, 2016). In 2013 this industry provided $2.3 billion to Canada’s Gross Domestic Product (Natural Resources Canada 2016).

A major competitive federal government award in 1998 to Université Laval, the University of Calgary and the University of New Brunswick resulted in the “Géomatique pour les interventions et decisions éclairées/GEOmatics for Informed Decisions” Network (GEOIDE). It formalized the promising link between remote sensing and other dimensions of spatial science. “GEOIDE assembles researchers across Canada, in a range of fields termed "geomatics" in Canada (including surveying, geodesy, photogrammetry, remote sensing, image processing, geography, planning, and geographic information science)” (Chrisman 2011). This was a fourteen-year experiment in conducting collaborative research. It linked researchers in geomatics with partners in various disciplines - from mathematics, engineering, natural sciences to social sciences and health. Dr. Keith Thomson, then Director of le Center de recherche en géomatique, Université Laval was selected to be the first Scientific Director of GEOIDE. From 1989 to 2012, GEOIDE funded 121 projects, with a total investment of $79.3 million (CAD$) and the development of a number of HQP (Highly Qualified Personnel) and successful companies.

Integration of remote sensing into ongoing environmental science is also a significant component of ArcticNet which was initially funded in 2003 and continues to be funded through the Networks of Centers of Excellence of Canada. The administrative center is based at the Université Laval in Quebec City, and the University of Ottawa in Ontario.

ArcticNet is a Network of Centres of Excellence of Canada that brings together more than 230 Arctic researchers, engineers and managers studying human health, natural and social sciences in the Arctic.

With partners from Inuit organizations, northern communities, 35 Canadian universities, eight federal and 11 provincial government agencies, ArcticNet works collaboratively with international research teams in Denmark, Finland, France, Greenland, Japan, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, to study the impacts of rapid climate, environmental and socio-economic change.” (https://arcticnet.ulaval.ca)

From the beginning, scientists recognized the value of satellite and airborne remote sensing for an integrated assessment of large tracts of sometimes inhospitable terrain.

One component of their mission statement is:

Increase and update the observational basis required to address the ecosystem-level questions raised by climate change and modernization in the Arctic. (https://arcticnet.ulaval.ca)

Major remote sensing field campaigns were directed by Dr. David Barber of the University of Manitoba.

Another initiative is LOOKNorth, a national Center of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR), founded and hosted by the nonprofit group C-CORE based in Newfoundland (https://c-core.ca/looknorth/). The focus is on “fostering innovation in remote sensing technologies and applications working with Canada’s leading satellite SMEs (small and medium size enterprises) to define and successfully execute missions relevant to industry and communities.” As with other Centers of Excellence, the focus is to build capacity. In this case the focus is on remote sensing and the North.

Existing Canadian Surveys of Remote Sensing Post-Secondary Institutions

L. David Nealey (1977) assessed both US and Canadian photogrammetric and remote sensing courses in the 1970s. Programs across Canada in 1975 included at least 27 remote sensing courses, 10 photo interpretation courses, 25 photogrammetry courses, and two other related courses taught at 13 institutions in seven academic areas. This was based upon responses to a survey of post-secondary institutions in North America (Dr. Philip Howarth is credited with helping to gather the Canadian Information).

The 1976 report of the Canadian Advisory Committee on Remote Sensing cited above included the notable discussion of university education. The appendix included Table 1 that was produced by V. Roy Slaney in preparation for this meeting (regrettably there is little information regarding the methodology that could be used for future inter-comparisons). This assessment indicates 58 institutions across Canada that included remote sensing courses with 91 undergraduate and 31 graduate full-time courses. The original 17-page report lists the courses and faculty members at that time. The differences evident when the data are compared against the L. David Nealey (1977) study of the same era are significant.

Table 1. Remote Sensing Courses in Canadian Universities and Colleges in 1976 from V. Roy Slaney, 1976.

		Number of Courses Listed
		Under Graduate		Graduate
Province	Universities & Colleges with Remote Sensing Courses	Partial	Full	Partial	Full	Active Provincial Remote Sensing Centers
Newfoundland	1	1	3	5	0	–
New Brunswick	1	1	4	0	3	–
Nova Scotia	4	3	2	0	0	–
Quebec	12	9	22	1	12	–
Ontario	26	33	34	2	12	X
Manitoba	3	5	10	0	1	X
Saskatchewan	2	1	2	0	0	–
Alberta	4	6	6	2	1	X
British Columbia	5	8	8	0	2	–
Totals	58	67	91	10	31

The 1986 CACRS Education Working Group report entitled “La Formation en Teledetection au Canada – Remote Sensing Education in Canada” (Bonn and Howarth 1986) includes raw data in the assessment presented in Part II of that report. We have summarized the totals in each category as interpreted from the draft report in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of the Remote Sensing Educational Activities in Canada in 1986 Selected From “La Formation en Teledetection au Canada – Remote Sensing Education in Canada” By Bonn and Howarth, 1986.

Post Secondary Institutions	Number of Faculty	Research Centers	Teaching Departments	Undergrad Courses	Grad Courses	HQP cited
33	66	16	35	83	45	71

Number of Faculty: number of named faculty members.

Research Centers: when evidence of research activity, each separate department is an individual center.

Teaching Departments: there may be more than one department per university.

Undergraduate Courses: a counting of those listed.

Grad Courses: a counting of those listed.

HQP cited: (Highly Qualified Personnel) number of theses or current specialized graduates listed.

Note that there are obvious discrepancies with the V. Roy Slaney assessment of the previous decade with, surprisingly, fewer institutions represented in the 1986 report (33 compared to 58) and fewer undergraduate courses listed (83 compared to 91) and 45 compared to 32 graduate courses. This clearly draws attention to the impact of a lack of a systematic and/or documented methodology in such survey analysis which continues to be an issue to the present.

In 2007 the Canadian Space Agency solicited a report on “An Inventory of Canadian Universities Active in Radar Remote Sensing” (Werle and Ball 2008; Werle and Aubé 2009). From internet sources and personal knowledge, the authors assembled names of post-secondary academics with an interest and involvement in radar remote sensing research and teaching. In doing so, they also embraced all aspects of remote sensing. Those so identified were asked to confirm and add to a draft table derived from the internet review. The response rate was approximately one/third.

At that time there were 100 faculty in 53 departments at 38 institutions (compared to 58 institutions of the 1976 V. Roy Slaney analysis) across Canada engaged in some aspect of remote sensing (Werle and Ball 2008). Twenty-six of these institutions had expertise in radar remote sensing and had five or more faculty with remote sensing expertise. Werle and Ball (2008) did not separate the data for undergraduate vs graduate courses in their published summary graphs. The authors of the current paper, however, reviewed the names of the courses in the appendix of Werle and Aubé (2009) and divided them into undergraduate and graduate based upon a similar assessment used for this study (discussed in the following) and estimated that there were 125 courses in undergraduate remote sensing with 31 at the graduate level. The caveat is that this assessment is based only on course name and number and therefore is subjective.

A cross-Canada profile dedicated to geomatics was published by Natural Resources Canada in 2016 (Natural Resources Canada 2016). This was motivated by “…growing concerns about the lack of understanding of the geomatics sector’s role and contribution to the Canadian economy and society, and the future of the sector in a period of rapid transformation of the market” (Natural Resources Canada 2016). A scan for Canada post-secondary institutions found geomatics programs “… at 12 institutions in Atlantic Canada, 16 in Quebec, 36 in Ontario, 10 in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the northern territories, 10 in Alberta, and 10 in British Columbia”. A summary of their data for geomatics is provided in Table 3. They cite 132 Undergraduate courses and 25 graduate courses in the 94 institutions.

Table 3. Summary of Academic Geomatics Education and Training Courses in Canada in 2016 from Natural Resources Canada, 2016.

	Coursework/	Bachelor	Masters	PhD
Region	Certificate Programs	Courses	Courses	Courses
Western/Northern Canada	59	42	5	2
Ontario	70	37	3	0
Quebec	23	37	8	1
Atlantic Canada	23	16	5	1
Total	175	132	21	4

International Context

We have found only a limited literature of comparative robust analyses in other countries. Gerner and Pause (2020) conducted a search from 2015 to 2019 of the Web of Science core collection data base with ‘remote sensing teaching’ as keywords. They found only 12 journal articles and 6 conference papers. However, using the same keywords on Scopus between 2017 and the present, the authors of this paper found 389 documents (while the keywords “remote sensing” produced 310,617 documents). These included all aspects of teaching remote sensing including review papers of progress in academic and research techniques in specific applications, etc.

In 1977 L. David Nealey reported a total of 470 remote sensing and photogrammetry related courses in the United States and Canada. In Table 4 we have noted that, from the same analysis, he found 64 of these were in Canada.

Table 4. Summary of the Remote Sensing Educational Activities in Canada, 1974 to 2021.

Source	Post Secondary Institution Count	Number of Faculty	Research Centers	Teaching Departments	Undergrad Courses	Grad Courses	HQP cited
2021 (LeDrew and Ryerson)	65	127	63	79	128	49	90
2016 (Natural Resources Canada)^a					132	25
2008 (Werle and Ball)	53	100			125	31
1986 (Bonn and Howarth)	33	66	16	35	83	45	71
1976 (Slaney)	58				91	31
1977 (L. David Nealey)	13				27 (64)*

* Bracketed figure adds photogrammetry and air photo interpretation to the 27 remote sensing courses.

^a Note that these are based upon a geomatics focussed project.

A 1981 analysis of data from the National Mapping Division of the U.S. Geological Survey project entitled “Mapping Sciences Education Data Base”, Jensen and Dahlberg (1983) tallied 691 remote sensing related courses and 280 photogrammetry courses. They ascribe part of the discrepancy over a very few years between the Nealey and USGS analyses to be the typical low response rates to a questionnaire. Jensen and Dahlberg plea for accurate statistics that would support “(i) the number of courses, their content and enrollment; (ii) conceptual educational models used; (iii) degrees or certificates offered; (iv) availability of resources; and (v) the status of remote sensing as a developing discipline”. With adequate data, they argue that there can be an enlightened discussion of new directions that remote sensing education may take.

Foresman and Serpi (1999) discussed the development of a remote sensing core curriculum within the United States context. From 1995 data they found approximately 5000 remote sensing professors/graduate assistants at that time and estimated a growth to over 15000 to 25000 by 2001. They reproduce a graph (Figure 1) created for a post-graduate thesis by Jones (1999) illustrating the rapid growth of post-secondary student enrollment between 1969 (prior to the launch of ERTS-1/Landsat 1) and 1993. This varied from a low of 5 in 1969 to 185 in 1986 and a modest stabilization up to 1993. It would be interesting to continue analysis of these data to the present, if available.

Figure 1. Number of students enrolled in remote sensing courses in the United States between 1969–1993 (Jones 1999, reproduced from Foresman and Serpi (1999)).

In a 1990 review, Voute (1992) reported that in Europe there were two streams of remote sensing training: that under the sponsorship of the Council of Europe, the European Space Agency and the Commission of European Communities, and a second autonomous development at the Country level, largely in universities. This dual branch development was the product of a 1979 European Workshop under the direction of the Council of Europe with a follow-up workshop in 1980. He found it difficult to determine the total number of institutions involved in undergraduate or post-graduate remote sensing instruction as fewer than 50 per cent are listed in the European Association of Remote Sensing Laboratories (EARSeL) or other relevant sources. As a consequence, a summary of the number of relevant programs and courses could not be presented. The author raised concerns that emerged at that time as a result of the lack of such information:

• There is a risk that increasing educational capacity may result in an oversupply of professional remote sensing personnel for the availability of positions. This is coupled with the poor development of the remote sensing market and cites the issues with the commercialization of the Landsat and SPOT products at that time.

• The “unbalanced and often uncoordinated development of the various academic educational and research programs” which created increasing conflicts between the objectives of institutions, the objectives of the user communities and the industrial sector (Voute 1992).

A keyword search by the authors on Scopus, Taylor and Francis, and Google Scholar does not reveal similar and more recent international studies in” Remote Sensing Education” since these reports. What is striking is a paucity of comparative data up to the present upon which to base curriculum planning and financial support for an industry so vital in many applications, including global environment change.

Update of Previous Assessments of Remote Sensing in Canadian Academic Institutions for 2021

This summary of the development history and existing surveys illustrates that, in the five decades since the launch of ERTS-1/Landsat 1 and the First Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing, there has been substantial development in the post-secondary remote sensing community across Canada, albeit with significant reservations about the actual survey numbers. To update the existing record, we decided to produce an assessment of that community in Canada in 2021. This will allow a longitudinal profile from 1976 to 2021 that may be used with judicious caution to provide a benchmark for similar assessments in the future and provide support for policy development.

Methodology

We used multiple strategies in an effort to be as thorough and representative as possible. A list of the Universities and Colleges across Canada was gathered from “Member Universities Archive - Universities Canada” (https://www.univcan.ca) and a comparable “List of postsecondary institutions” which includes colleges (https://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/81-582-X/institution.pdf).

We proceeded to examine the web pages for each institution to determine contact people in departments or research units which incorporated remote sensing research and training. The web pages for the disciplines of Geography, Geology, Forestry, Engineering, and Computer Science were examined. As noted previously, remote sensing has been incorporating Geographic Information Systems technology. The GIS programs that, from the evidence, include any significant remote sensing content were also identified. We also added names of individuals from our own experience as potential sources of further information.

In January and February of 2021, we sent out a survey to these contacts by email. In the questionnaire we asked for responses in the following categories:

• Name of Institution and names of departments within that institution that have research and/or teaching interest now and in the past in some area of remote sensing in the broad sense.

• Names of principals and Highly Qualified Personnel (graduate students and Post-Doctoral Students) in remote sensing in these departments now, and in the past, with dates of activity if possible.

• Themes and any changes in themes (with dates) within remote sensing pursued in research and, separately, in teaching. Here, a list of courses and names with summaries as well as any major changes that have occurred over time would be helpful.

• Any approved and short statements of strategic planning for the near future for the academic unit.

• Any additional information that the recipient wished to be considered. Here there may be explanations of major changes, key roles that members have played in the national and international development of remote sensing as well as other notes of interest that explain the evolution of remote sensing in education.

The response rate was less than satisfactory for what we were hoping to achieve but perhaps typical of written questionnaires solicited via e-mail. The response was approximately 1 of 3. Consequently, we conducted a more in-depth re-assessment by re-visiting each institution’s web site and looked in more detail at individual departments, names of unit heads, courses and the identity of recent instructors, if available. We also recorded news of relevant publications that may be interpreted to identify possible activities. In this manner we were able to find additional information for many of those missing institutions and included these data in our survey results.

Subsequently, we sent a copy of the survey results to the specific institutions, units (including unit heads if available), or active individuals with a request for verification of the information and addition of relevant information. In this manner, we were able to find some new information and verify other data.

We also include institution web site information that was reviewed by the authors, and which did not receive verification from the institutional representative but which in our judgment we believe to be accurate. As a result of these procedures there will be some errors of omission but limited errors of commission. This process brought in data or supplementary data for another 42 institutions.

While we are confident that we were able to get some information for each active institution in the provinces and the territories, we also acknowledge that the representation is very uneven based upon the presentation and type of information provided. This results in a varying degree of granularity.

We intend to post the full spreadsheet of results with the Canadian Remote Sensing Society as a living document. We will update the information as more and perhaps corrected detail is sent to us as our colleagues review the data. We expect that there are some errors and misrepresentations for which we apologize in advance.

Results

Table 4 is a summary table of the information acquired alongside similar information from previous analyses. The survey conducted in 2021 for this report found 127 Faculty members, 63 research centers, 79 teaching departments, 128 undergraduate courses and 49 graduate courses across Canada which were significantly related to remote sensing.

In evaluation of these data, however, issues of nomenclature and procedure present a quandary in understanding what is represented and how this information can be compared to previous studies.

For example, how much has remote sensing evolved from strictly remote sensing named courses into programs involving geographic information systems, geomatics or spatial data handling named courses? Anecdotally, our own experiences indicate that there has been considerable integration, but what is the threshold of remote sensing content to tell us whether there is significant professional training that may be relevant to our assessment?

How do we identify whether there are any remote sensing components of some of the less obvious courses, such as in system design or computer science vision? Review of published calendar course descriptions provide only limited information and may vary in detail of execution from instructor to instructor teaching the same course.

The question remains, how confident can we be with our low questionnaire response rates that are typical for this type of mailing? This also has implications for attempts to get more detailed information, such as the number of graduate students active in research. This information can only be gleaned from responses to questionnaires as it is often not reported in on-line material. Indeed, some universities prevent distribution of this information due to privacy regulations.

Related to this issue of missing important information are the myriad issues the authors found in navigating and searching web pages for additional data. The web page navigation procedures of a wide range of institutions we found, in many cases, to be bewildering, and engendered sympathy for a new student exploring career and course options. Search engines appear to behave differently from institution to institution. Also, the level of detail provided on the web page itself is variable. In some there is no identification of hosting departments and course themes become evident only after detailed search. For others there is nothing in addition to the course title and year. After some detailed inquiry, we find that some community colleges reference courses provided by other institutions. Some groups have more detailed information on Highly Qualified Personnel (graduate students and Post-Doctoral Fellows) than others; we know that there are varying university policies regarding privacy of students. We may be missing individual activities in some sectors of an institution altogether. An example would be recent advances in remote sensing of archeological sites.

The resultant data must be accepted to be on the conservative side. Inter-institutional and time-line comparisons can be made only with limited confidence. Nevertheless, the information and issues that are a result of this and previous surveys represent a range of challenges for further study. We can only present a limited selection in this article.

Observations

The raw numbers from the survey and web assessments present a national landscape with various levels of remote sensing education apparent in a great number of post-secondary institutions in the provinces and the territories. This is evident not only in the major research universities but also in the affiliate institutions, regional colleges and some private institutions. From the questionnaire, we see that there has been significant growth in teaching at undergraduate and graduate levels as well as the scope of university research since the first review by V. Roy Slaney in 1976. This growth is even more convincing from the perusal of web pages and anecdotal information.

While it is not the intention to rank institutions in this study, clearly there are locations of intense activity where careful planning has taken advantage of opportunities to develop robust programs. The role of the Canada Center for Remote Sensing in encouraging, fostering and supporting the educational sector has been an important factor in providing the groundwork. In addition, the evolution and focus of funding strategies (such as Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Canadian Space Agency, Geoide, Look North and ArcticNet), ranging from individual activities to group research and trans-sectional partnerships, has helped foster significant developments in academic remote sensing.

The Future of Remote Sensing Education in the Canadian Context

Considering the remarkable development in the educational sector of image analysis and remote sensing evident in the data of Table 4 over the past five decades, it is clear that there has been and will continue to be tremendous scope for innovation and development. The image-based nature of remote sensing lends itself naturally to computer-based teaching and training. Very quickly the discipline has explored the potential for distributed teaching.

A notable example of an e-teaching platform based tutorial that was developed in Canada is the ‘Remote Sensing Tutorials” provided by the Canada Center for Remote Sensing, in partnership with Intermap Technologies Ltd. (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/maps-tools-and-publications/satellite-imagery-and-air-photos/tutorial-fundamentals-remote-sensing). This provides a comprehensive introductory reference to the field of remote sensing and is directed to senior high school and early university levels. There are excellent examples of this computer-based instruction in other countries, and these are often the student’s first introduction to the field in addition to being an ongoing refresher and reference.

Such examples address a recognized need but are part of the ‘big cup filling the small cup” pedagogical approach that is now viewed as rather limiting. This involves a teacher filling the students’ knowledge bank in, predominantly, a one-way teaching process. A more effective approach, however, is guided instructor feedback that develops the creative and critical evaluative skills of the student through extensive interaction with other students and experts. In our discipline this is accomplished through interactive image processing that is fundamental to remote sensing, exploration of ideas that that evolve through group learning in the classroom or seminar setting, and inclusion of multi-disciplinary and team-based learning methodologies.

In this context, Chasmer et al. (2021) observe that the discipline has recently experienced a “disruptive innovation trend” fostered by rapid increases in data availability and democratization of the discipline. The authors highlight the marked development in the use of spatial and temporal data by non-experts in the field. One example is web-based platforms that encourage citizen science participation in ground validation of land cover changes, mapping communities and a range of other applications. A notable example is the Geo-Wiki developed at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (https://www.geo-wiki.org/page/about)/.

From a survey of trainees and early career professionals at a national Canadian conference, with a follow up survey to the wider Canadian community, Chasmer et al. (2021) address the issue of connecting trainee learning to industry needs that increasingly require multi-disciplinary approaches. As part of this extensive discussion amongst users, the authors heard that ingestion and analysis of big data with new algorithms will be the substance of the remote sensing scientist of the future as compared to the skill set of the non-expert users. The discipline will experience a shift from ‘what is’ or ‘what was’ into ‘what will be’ and ‘why it matters.’ (Chasmer et al. 2021). This will require and lead to the development of skills that will allow experts to address increasingly important and complicated issues affecting our environment “within a team-based process involving in-depth remote sensing and discipline expertise working together. In such an environment accumulation of advanced knowledge across multiple disciplines at the same time will be difficult and require hitherto unexplored approaches to problem solving.” (Chasmer et al. 2021).

A recent implementation of the multi-discipline and team-based approach is illustrated in a recent special journal issue on remote sensing teaching. Gerner and Pause (2020) observe that “teaching in the field of remote sensing is still attributed with inert/non-productive knowledge which is considered highly specialized and technical, but hardly enables exchanging views across disciplinary borders.” They explored the use of simulation game methodology in the development of soil moisture monitoring using remote sensing. This approach provides:

• More personal motivation and individual involvement;

• More exploratory acquisition of relevant skills and knowledge; and

• More practical relevance for the decisions made and obtained results.

They found that the “need for creative thinking triggered both communication skills and eagerness of exploring required content (linked to remote sensing specific learning objectives)” amongst the group of graduate students. This was a consequence of involvement of a variety of stakeholders from different institutions as well as ongoing interactions with various facilitators. The authors conclude that “increasing availability of e-teaching platforms, including communication functionality, paves the way for new class design and supervision”.

This and similar evolving pedagogical approaches have been sorely tested during the recent COVID experience. One may argue, however, that the global Covid disruption we are witnessing may be a sufficiently significant event that it may trigger dramatic innovation and development in remote sensing teaching. Since the first international recognition of COVID-19 by the spring of 2020, teaching in education institutions has evolved as teaching and research methods respond to needs for social distancing and various degrees of isolation. UNESCO (2020) has estimated that over 1.5 billion students worldwide have had their education hampered by school closures. At the University of Waterloo, as an example, large classes continued to be canceled into the winter of 2022. These were replaced by existing classes that had been previously developed on-line for Extended Learning (often a big glass filling the little glass teaching approach) as well as hastily prepared synchronous meetings over Zoom, or other similar platforms. These rapidly enacted procedures have been termed “Emergency Remote Education (ERE)” (Bashir et al. 2021). An understanding of the impact may provide some guidance for remote sensing education in the future.

For example, from this experience some administrators are seeing opportunities for new post-pandemic university niches in learning. These include blended classes with a combination of on-line teaching resources and face-to-face meets in traditional settings. This is the Hybrid model (Bashir et al. 2021), which is appropriate when there are critical laboratory components in which the student must participate. The Hyflex model (Bashir et al. 2021) combines options for the student to select face-to-face meetings that have been offered synchronously in addition to asynchronous on-line learning in which they can follow their own schedule. This provides a choice for the student between traditional lecture-based learning and computer-based learning.

However, in our operational experience we have found that the computer-based instruction does not allow traditional discussion groups and hands-on experiential learning. Our experience with the discussion component of on-line learning platforms, such as Desire to Learn Brightspace (https://www.d2l.com) does attempt to engender the inquiry and social experiences of classroom tutorials. Although they are useful to help encourage students to interact with each other via messaging in a situation similar to the familiar social networking experience, in practice the student is still alone in their own physical and virtual cell. This technology, however, is in the rapid growth phase of the development curve and there will be more innovative concepts to come. The remote sensing community needs to engage with this opportunity and create interactive learning experiences that will carry us forward.

These are computer focused experiences that are well suited to the image-based nature of the discipline. As part of this evolution, and critically with respect to international teaching, we must see progress in removing existing inequalities that are inherent in the very concept of networked learning, particularly with the have-not members on the wrong side of the digital divide. There are opportunities for increased teaching for developing economies, such as practiced by ITC in the Netherlands, but we need to be innovative in our delivery strategy. For example, in Sub-Sahara Africa, only 18% of students have household internet, compared to 50% globally (UNESCO 2020). The recent school closures have illustrated an international crisis in education, which has been exacerbated for those in the have-not side of the global digital disparity. A recent global assessment of education concludes that, as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, “It is evident that we cannot return to the world as it was before.” (UNESCO 2020).

The community now has the opportunity to leverage the focus on image-based instruction to maximize the on-line advantages. In Canada, the recent discussion by the Canadian Remote Sensing Society on certification has introduced several relevant discussion points that include interinstitutional comparisons of syllabi and pedagogy, networked delivery of content and discussion, sharing of materials that may result from this, and incorporation of open-source materials and software in a distributed environment. Some of the innovation that may arise out of this exploration will help shape the future of remote sensing education.

The resultant innovation and realization of new potentials will, of necessity, be balanced by a reworking of the nature of the front-line interaction with teachers. As a result of the COVID class shutdown, the role of the ‘human in the room’ has actually benefited as a result of an increased appreciation by the students for the traditional social space of a classroom and unstructured discussion amongst peers.

As of the fall term in 2022, one of the authors had just finished five terms of teaching a large undergraduate class on-line. There was a decided advantage for this initiative in comparison to the typical COVID emergency on-line conversions in that the course presentation and content was planned over a year before the start of the COVID restrictions as a specific networked delivery course. Strategies for communication and solution of challenges afforded by asynchronous teaching were addressed. We engaged with students at home in Abu Dhabi, Dar E Salaam and India, as examples. We found, however, even with expert guidance provided by the University Center for Extended Learning with over 40 years of experience of similar distance classes, that the students were stressed, felt isolated from their peers, and suffered from lack of spontaneous consultation. Accessibility to specialized resources could be a difficulty. In some cases, the student had scheduled on-line discussion with the instructor, was in a room frequented by family members going about their normal activities in a different culture and, consequently, there was concern about confidentiality of the family members that increased the discomfort for the student. We also found new sources of stress associated with an on-line test and examination format that was new for the student and different from that expected in a typical University setting. From experiences to date we can pose several questions that have arisen as a result of this disruption that will require consideration. They come at a time when there are realistic solutions that are being tested and implemented:

• How will remote sensing education, research and networked work processes characteristic of advanced technological study respond? Or does the community hope all will return to ‘normal’?

• From an institutional perspective, will the expansion of teaching and research into the smaller academic units that we have found in this survey continue over the next five to ten years? Or will we find the smaller units to wither as a consequence of the administrative challenges of teaching during COVID and the evolving expectations of the students? Can the teaching of an image-based curriculum actually be a route to a solution for a networked teaching environment?

• Will the smaller institutions be able to transition and financially support this technically intricate and often expensive technology without targeted funding, perhaps from external sources? Or will partnerships and remote delivery be part of the solution?

• Considering various models of delivery and teaching with normally configured home computers, what is the role of emerging technological trends such as python, data cubes, artificial intelligence, open access code and, on the horizon, quantum algorithms? Are there any advantages to the hybrid, or the traditional ‘human in the room’ paradigm. Are there new opportunities that may be ideally suited to this issue?

• Can the educational institutions afford the infrastructure and support required to teach and conduct research in the 65 institutions currently involved? Or should there be some national standardization that can take advantage of the evolving networked teaching approach?

• Can there be one national center for remote sensing research or is this even desirable? This could take many forms, such as a small subset of the discipline for accreditation that may draw international professionals, a series of recognized nodes with individual specializations, or a nationally recognized teaching center. This last model will not be considered within the current confines of the provincial mandate for education. But in that case, is there an argument for a national program for providing resources, data acquisition and guidance for teaching such as originally envisaged by CCRS/CACRS?

Conclusions

The establishment of remote sensing teaching and research across the country is encouraging. For those of us who were in graduate school when the first ERTS-1/Landsat 1 imagery was distributed on massive tape media and viewed by taping together line-printer output that could only be visualized by viewing it at a distance, the efforts of the ever-increasing numbers of professionals are very gratifying.

We suggest that the Canadian post-secondary remote sensing teaching community is at a very mature stage. This community is finding that rapid increases in technology are providing new opportunities for remote sensing concepts to be embedded as a vital component of application areas where it was not considered before. This has seeded new challenges and opportunities.

The community must also recognize that Covid-19 may have forced a new educational paradigm upon us. Educators have had to be flexible in delivery and consider new teaching methodologies. Remote sensing educators may find that our discipline is well suited to this.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had momentous impact globally. Will the academic community and supporting partners presume that we are to continue with a ‘business as usual’ strategy or can we take advantage of what we have been forced to learn to change the nature of what we do?

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the numerous remote sensing scientists across Canada who had the time and patience to respond to our questionnaires. We are also appreciative of Dr. Philip Howarth for providing background knowledge and references. We thank the anonymous reviewers who have provided us with additional studies and sources of documentation that have improved this discussion substantially.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).