Browse > Article

A Method of Evaluating the Spatial Difference between Two Numerical Surfaces  

Lee Jung-Eun (Department of Urban Engineering, University of Tokyo)
Sadahiro Yukio (Department of Urban Engineering, University of Tokyo)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Geographical Society / v.41, no.2, 2006 , pp. 212-226 More about this Journal
Abstract
Surface data generally represent continuous distribution of geographical or social phenomena of a region in urban analysis. Instances include distribution of temperature, population of region, and various distributions related to human activities. When spatial data are given in the form of surface, surface comparison is required as a way of comprehending the surface change or the relationship between two surfaces. As for previous approaches of surface comparison, there are visualization, quantitative methods and qualitative method. All those approaches, however, show the difference between two surfaces in a limited way. Especially, they are not able to distinguish spatial difference between two surfaces. To overcome such problem, this paper proposes a method of comparing two surfaces in terms of their spatial structure. Main concept of the method comes from earth moving problem and the method is named minimum surface transformation, here. When a surface is transformed into another, total surface volume moved in the process of transformation should be the minimum. Both quantitative and spatial differences between two surfaces are evaluted by total surface volume moved and the distribution of moved surface volume of each cell respectively. The method is applied to hypothetical and actual data. From the former, it is understood that the method explains how two surfaces are quantitatively and spatially different. The result of the latter shows that moved total surface volume decreases as time goes by which fits the actual situation that population change rate gets smaller. Concerning the other measure of surface difference, the distribution of $X_{ij}$ describes detailed flow of surface volume than that of simply subtracting surface volume by indicating to what direction the population change occurs.
Keywords
surface comparison; spatial difference; earth moving; minimum surface transformation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Congalton, R. G. and Mead, R. A., 1983, A Quantitative Method to Test for Consistency and Correctness in Photointerpretation, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 49(1), 69-74
2 Pfaltz, J. L., 1976, Surface Networks, Geographical Analysis, 8(1), 77-93   DOI
3 Pontius, Jr. R. G., 2000, Quantification error versus location error in comparison of categorical maps. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 66, 1011-1016
4 Trosset, M. W., 2005, Visualizing Correlation, Journal of Computational & Graphical Statistics, 14(1), 1-19   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Wada, K., Takahasi, T. and Yamanoto, K., 1991, Application of Fuzzy Theory to Earth Moving Problem in the Field of Construction, Proceedings of 46th Annual Meeting of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 4, 140-141
6 Davis, R., Foote, F., Anderson, J., and Mikhail, E., 1981, Surveying: Theory and Practice, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y
7 Easa, S. M., 1988, Estimating Pit Excavation Volume Using Nonlinear Ground Profile, Journal of Surveyng Engineering, ASCE 114(2), 71-83   DOI
8 Okabe, A. and Masuda, S., 1984, Qualitative Analysis of Two-dimensional Urban Population Distributions in Japan, Geographical Analysis, 16(4), 301-312   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Hagen, A., Straatman, B., Uljee, L., 2005, Further Developments of a Fuzzy Set Map Comparison Approach, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 19(7), 769-785   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Flower, R. J., and Little, J.J., 1979, Automatic Extraction of Irregular Network Digital Terrain Models, Computer Graphics, 13, 199-207   DOI
11 Wolf, G. W., 1984, A Mathematical Model of Cartographic Generalization, Geo-Processing, 2, 271-286
12 Nakagawa, Y., Takata, T. Sada, T. and Hayasi, T., 1994, Simulation of Earth Moving by using EWS Management System. Proceedings of $49^{th}$ Annual Meeting of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 4, 558-559
13 Hagen, A., 2003, Fuzzy Set Approach to Assessing Similarity of Categorical Maps, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(3), 235-249   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Murai, S., Obayashi, S., 1973, Simulation of Earth Movin on Residential Land Development, Proceedings of $28^{th}$ Annual Meeting of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 5, 267-268
15 Pontius, Jr. R. G., Agrawal, A., Huffaker, D., 2003, Estimating the Uncertainty of Land-cover Extrapolation while constructing a Raster Map from Tabular Data, Journal of Geographical Systems, 5, 253-273   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Rosenfield, G. H. and Fitzpatrick-Lins, K., 1986, A Coefficient of Agreement as a Measure of Thematic Classification Accuracy, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 52(2), 223-227
17 Pontius, Jr. R. G., and Schneider, L. C., 2001, Land-cover Change Model Validation by an ROC Method for the Ipswich Watershed, Massachusetts, USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 85, 239-248   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Bernold, L. and Halpin, D. W., 1984, Microcomputer Cost Optimization of Earth Moving Operation, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Organization and Management of Construction, 2, 333-341
19 Okabe, A. and Sadahiro, Y., 1994, A Statistical Method for Analyzing the Spatial Relationship between the Distribution of Activity Points and the Distribution of Activity Continuously Distributed over a Region, Geographical Analysis, 26(2), 152-167   DOI