Skip to main content
Log in

Diachronic Analysis of Fuzzy Objects

  • Published:
GeoInformatica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a method to monitor the behavior of fuzzy spatial objects through time. The method consists of two steps. Firstly the spatial extents of objects are determined at several sequential epochs. The method explains the case where objects are not crisply defined, so that the identified spatial extents will be fuzzy. Secondly, to detect dynamic changes in fuzzy objects, a method was proposed to identify objects and their state transitions from fuzzy spatial extents (regions) at different epochs. Similarity indicators of fuzzy regions were calculated based upon overlap between regions at consecutive epochs. Different combinations of indicator values imply different relationships between regions. Regions that are very similar represent the consecutive states of one object. By linking the regions, the historic lifelines of objects are built automatically. Then the relationship between regions became the relationship or interactions between objects, which were expressed in terms of processes, such as shift, merge or split. This approach will be illustrated by means of a coastal monitoring study of a barrier island in The Netherlands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P.A. Burrough. “Natural Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries,” in P.A. Burrough, and A. U. Frank (eds.), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries, Taylor & Francis: London, 3-28, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. P.A. Burrough and A.U. Frank. “Concepts and Paradigms in Spatial Information: Are Current Geographic Information System Truly Generic?,” Int. J. Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 9-2:101-116, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P.A. Burrough and A.U. Frank. Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries, Taylor & Francis: London, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  4. T. Cheng. A Process-Oriented Data Model for Fuzzy Spatial Objects, Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen/ITC, 1999.

  5. T. Cheng, M. Molenaar, and T. Bouloucos. “Identification of Fuzzy Objects from Field Observation Data,” In S.C. Hirtle, and Frank, A.U., (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, (Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Vol. 1329), Spring-Verlag: Berlin, 241-259, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  6. T. Cheng and M. Molenaar. “Objects with Fuzzy Spatial Extent,” Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, Vol. 65(7):797-801, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  7. T. Cheng, M. Molenaar, and T. Bouloucos. “Fuzzy Object Models and their Application,” Proceedings of International Conference of Spatial Information Science, Technology and its Applications, (SIST'98), 13–16, Wuhan, pp. 408-416, 1998.

  8. H. Couclelis. “People Manipulate Objects (but cultivate fields): Beyond the Raster-Vector Debate,” in A.U. Frank, I. Campari, and U. Formentini (eds.), Theories and methods of spatio-temporal reasoning in geographic space (Lecture Notes in computer Sciences), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Vol. 639:65-77, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  9. L.W.S. De Graaff. “Het Strand: De Relatie Tussen Processen, Materialen en Vormen, en Een Proeve van Terminologie-Gebruik,” Koninklijl Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap Geografisch Tijdschrift, Nieuwereeks, Vol. XI-1:47-67, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J.H.M. De Ruig and C.J. Louisse. “Sand Budget Trends and Changes Along the Holland Coast,” Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 7-4:1013-1026, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Dijkmeijer and S. De Hoop. “Topologic Relationships between Fuzzy Area Objects,” in M.J. Kraak and M. Molenaar (eds.), Advences in GIS Researches II, Proceedings of 7th Spatial Data Handling, London: Taylor & Francis, 377-394, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M.A. Eleveld, Cheng T., and R.A. van Zuidam. “Towards a Decision Support System for Coastal Zone Management by Applying Morphodynamic Modeling with Remote Sensing Data Input in a 4-D GIS Environment,” Proceedings of Third Thematic Conference of Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, Technology And Applications, Seattle, USA, Vol. 1:256-265, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Galton. “Continuous Change in Spatial Regions,” in S.C. Hirtle, and Frank, A.U., (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, (Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Vol. 1329), Spring-Verlag: Berlin, 1-13, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M.F. Goodchild. “The State of GIS for Environmental Problem-Solving,” in M.F. Goodchild, B.O. Parks, and L.T. Steyaert (eds.), Environmental Modeling with GIS. Oxford University Press: New York, 8-15, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Van der T. Heuvel and R. Hillen. Coastline Management, internal publication of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, The Netherlands, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. E.J. Huising, R.W.L. Jordans, F.M. Spruijt, E.M.J. Vaessen, R.J. Wicherson, J.F. Zomerdijk, and M. van Persie. 1996, Framework Digital Elevation Models Dutch Coast—Various Techniques for Topographic Measurement Tested on a common Site, The Netherlands Remote Sensing Board (BCRS) Programme Bureau, Rijkswaterstaat Survey Department, Delft, 63 p.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K.K. Kemp. “Environmental Modeling with GIS: a Strategy for Dealing with Spatial Continutity,” in Proceedings, GIS/LIS'92 Annual Conference and Exposition, San Jose, California, Vol. 1:397-406, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Z. Ma and S. Zhao. “Using an Object and Rule-Based Merging Algorithm to Eliminate Small Regions Less Than Minimum Mapping Unit,” Geographic Information Sciences, Vol. 1–2:110-117, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Molenaar. “A Syntax for the Representation of Fuzzy Spatial Objects,” in M. Molenaar, and S. de Hoop (eds.), Advanced Geographic Data Modeling. Netherlands Geodetic Commission, Delft: New Series, Nr. Vol. 40:155-169, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Molenaar. “The Extensional Uncertainty of Spatial Objects,” In M. J. Kraak and M. Molenaar (eds.), Advances in GIS Researches II, Proceedings of 7th Spatial Data Handling, Taylor & Francis: London, p. 571-583.

  21. M. Molenaar, An Introduction to the Theory of Spatial Object Modeling for GIS. Taylor & Francis: London, 229 pp, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  22. H.E. Reineck and I.B. Singh. Depositional Sedimentary Environments (2nd edition), Springer Verlag: Berlin, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  23. B.G. Ruessink and A. Kroon. “The Behavior of a Multiple Bar System in the Nearshore Zone of Terschelling, The Netherlands: 1965–1993,” International Journal of Marine Geology, Geochemistry and Geophysics, Vol. 121:187-197, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  24. E.L. Usery. “A Conceptual Framework and Fuzzy Set Implementation for Geographic Feature,” in P. A. Burrough, and A. U. Frank (eds.), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries. Taylor & Francis: London, 71-85, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  25. F.B. Zhan. “Approximation of Topological Relationship between Fuzzy Regions Satisfying a Linguistically Described Query,” in S.C. Hirtle, and A.U. Frank (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS (Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Vol. 1329). Spring-Verlag: Berlin, 509-510, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cheng, T., Molenaar, M. Diachronic Analysis of Fuzzy Objects. GeoInformatica 3, 337–355 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009884730822

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009884730822

Navigation