Fuzzy Set Theory in Geospatial Analysis

  • Yaolong Zhao


Geographical information science (GIS) systems are designed to store, retrieve, manipulate, analyze, and map geographical data. Since the 1960s when R.F. Tomlinson first presented the GIS, this field has mainly focused on the construction of the systems, the improvement of system functions, and the extension of its application to other disciplines. The research contents have played an important role in providing spatial decision-making support for both governments and the public, and have also promoted the formation and development of the discipline of Geographic Information Science (Goodchild 1992). However, with the extension and deepening of applications, users began to doubt the results of spatial analysis using GIS (Doucette and Paresi 2000; Morrison 1995; Östman 1997; Stefanakis et al. 1999). The raw material for GIS (i.e., the original data imported into GIS) inevitably always contains errors (Shi et al. 2002). Data models used in GIS to describe the real world are just approximations to objective reality. In addition, all kinds of spatial operations and processing approaches may bring new errors and uncertainties into the production of spatial analysis. Most existing designs of GIS software are based on the hypothesis that no errors exist in geographic entities and their spatial relationships. Generally, GIS can only deal with determinate spatial entities and their relationships. However, using a GIS designed to deal with determinate data for uncertain data will bring about problems, and the results cannot satisfy the users’ needs (Shi et al. 2002). As the outputs of GIS play an important role in spatial decision-making support, users began to be concerned about the quality of spatial data in GIS. This undoubtedly made many scholars think about the field of GIS spatial data quality control (Mowrer and Congalton 2000; Östman 1997; Shi et al. 2002).


Spatial Data Constraint Satisfaction Problem Spatial Reasoning Topological Relationship Fuzzy Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Burrough PA (1989) Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey and land evaluation. J Soil Sci 40:477–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burrough PA, Frank AU (1996) Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Burrough PA, Heuvelink GBM (1992) The sensitivity of Boolean and continuous (Fuzzy) logical modeling to uncertain data In: Proceedings of 3rd European conference on geographical information systems, Munich, Germany, pp 1032–1041Google Scholar
  4. Burrough PA, van Gaans PFM, Hootsmans R (1997) Continuous classification in soil survey: spatial correlation, confusion and boundaries. Geoderma 77:115–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng T, Molenaar M, Lin H (2001) Formalizing fuzzy objects from uncertain classification results. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15:27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clementini E, Di Felice P (1997) Approximate topological relations. Int J Approx Reason 16:173–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohn A, Gotts N (1996) The “Egg-Yolk” representation of regions with indeterminate boundaries. In: Burrough P, Frank AU (eds) Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 171–187Google Scholar
  8. Creignou N, Khanna S, Sudan M (2001) Complexity classifications of Boolean constraint satisfaction problems. SIAM Monographs on Discrete Mathematics and Applications, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doucette M, Paresi C (2000) Quality management in GDI. In: Groot R, MacLaughlin J (eds) Geospatial data infrastructure: concepts, cases, and good practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 85–96Google Scholar
  10. Du S, Wang Q, Qin Q (2007) Representation and combined reasoning of spatial relationships. Science Press (in Chinese), BeijingGoogle Scholar
  11. Egenhofer MJ, Franzosa R (1991) Point-set topological spatial relations. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 5:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egenhofer MJ, Herring J (1991) Categorizing binary topological relations between regions, lines and points in geographic databases. Technical Report, Department of Surveying Engineering, University of MaineGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher P (2000) Sorites paradox and vague geographies. Fuzzy Set Syst 113:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher PF (1999) Models of uncertainty in spatial data. In: Longley PA, Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW (eds) Geographical information systems: principles and technical issues, vol 1. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 191–205Google Scholar
  15. Frank AU (1991). Qualitative spatial reasoning about cardinal directions. In: Proceedings of Auto-Carto 10, Baltimore, Maryland, pp 148–167Google Scholar
  16. Frank AU (1996) Qualitative spatial reasoning: cardinal directions as an example. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 10:269–290Google Scholar
  17. Gaal SA (1964) Point set topology. Academic, DuluthGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodchild MF (1992) Geographical information science. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 6:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodchild MF (1999) Future directions in geographic information science. Geogr Inform Sci 5:1–8Google Scholar
  20. Goodchild MF, Dubuc O (1987) A model of error for choropleth maps with applications to geographic information systems. In: Proceedings of AUROCARTO8, Falls Church, pp 165–174Google Scholar
  21. Goodchild MF, Gopal S (1989) Accuracy of spatial database. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodchild MF, Jeansoulin R (1998) Data quality in geographic information – from error to uncertainty. Hermes, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Guesgen HW, Albrecht J (2000) Imprecise reasoning in geographic information systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 113:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hernàndez D (1994) Qualitative representation of spatial knowledge. Sparger-Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hernàndez D, Clementini E, Di Felice P (1995) Qualitative distances. Lect Notes Comput Sci 998:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heuvelink G, Burrough P, Stein A (1989) Propagation of errors in spatial modelling with GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 3:303–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hong J, Egenhofer M, Frank AU (1995) On the robustness of qualitative distance and directions reasoning. In: The 12th international symposium on computer assisted cartography, Charlotte, North Carolina, pp 301–310Google Scholar
  28. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1995) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  29. Ladkin PB, Maddux R (1994) On binary constraint problems. J ACM 41:435–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marriott K, Stuckey P (1998) Programming with constraints: an introduction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. McBratney A, de Gruijter J (1992) A continuum approach to soil classification by modified fuzzy k-means with extra grades. J Soil Sci 43:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Metternicht G (1999) Change detection assessment using fuzzy sets and remotely sensed data: an application of topographic map revision. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 54:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miyajima K, Ralescu A (1994) Spatial organization in 2D segmented images: representation and recognition of primitive spatial relations. Fuzzy Set Syst 65:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morrison JL (1995) Spatial data quality. In: Guptill SC, Morrison JL (eds) Elements of spatial data quality. Elsevier Science, Tokyo, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  35. Mowrer TH, Congalton RG (2000) Quantifying spatial uncertainty in natural resources: theory and applications for GIS and remote sensing. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Östman A (1997) The specification and evaluation of spatial data quality. In: Proceedings of the 18th ICA international cartographic conference. Swedish Cartographic Society, Sweden, pp 836–847Google Scholar
  37. Renz J (2002) Qualitative spatial reasoning with topological information. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson VB (1988) Some implications of fuzzy set theory applied to geographic databases. Comput Environ Urban Syst 12:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schneider M (1999) Uncertainty management for spatial data in database: fuzzy spatial data types. Lect Notes Comput Sci 1651:330–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharma J (1996) Integrated spatial reasoning in geographic information systems: combining topology and direction. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Surveying Engineering, University of MaineGoogle Scholar
  41. Shi W, Fisher P, Goodchild MF (2002) Spatial data quality. CRC Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stefanakis E, Vazirgiannis M, Sellis T (1999) Incorporating fuzzy set methodologies in a DBMS repository for the application domain of GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 13:657–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tarski A (1941) On the calculus of relations. J Symb Log 6:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang F (1990) Improving remote sensing image analysis through fuzzy information representation. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 56:1163–1169Google Scholar
  45. Worboys M, Clementini E (2001) Integration of imperfect spatial information. J Vis Lang Comput 12:61–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhao Y, Murayama Y, Zhang Y (2005) Field-based fuzzy spatial reasoning model for geographical information systems: case of constraint satisfaction problem. Theory Appl GIS 13:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of GeographySouth China Normal UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Division of Spatial Information ScienceUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations