Representing Complex Geographic

Phenomena in GIS
May Yuan
ABSTRACT: Conventionally, spatial data models have been designed based on either object- or field-
based conceptualizations of reality. Conceptualization of complex geographic phenomena that have both
object- and field-like properties, such as wildfire and precipitation, has not yet been incorporated into
GIS data models. To this end, a new conceptual framework is proposed in this research for organizing
data about such complex geographic phenomena in a GIS as a hierarchy of events, processes, and
states. In this framework, discrete objects are used to show how events and processes progress in space
and time, and fields are used to model how states of geographic themes vary in a space-time frame.
Precipitation is used to demonstrate the construction and application of the proposed framework with
digital precipitation data from April 15 to May 22, 1998, for the state of Oklahoma, U.S.A. With the
proposed framework, two sets of algorithms have been developed. One set automatically assembles
precipitation events and processes from the data and stores the precipitation data in the hierarchy of
events, processes, and states, so that attributes about events, processes, and states are readily available for
information query. The other set of algorithms computes information about the spatio-temporal behavior
and interaction of events and processes. The proposed approach greatly enhances support for complex
spatio-temporal queries on the behavior and relationships of events and processes.

Introduction uous. Discrete phenomena are spatially homog-

R
ecent technological advances have greatly
eased geospatial data acquisition. As a
result, the size and complexity of geospa-
tial data have been growing significantly. With
this growth, new challenges have arisen for data-
base technologies as new concepts and methods
are needed for basic data operations, query lan-
guages, and query processing strategies (Lmielinski
and Mannila 1996). Geographic information scien-
tists face an even greater challenge because query
processing and optimization for GIS databases is rela-
tively underdeveloped (Egenhofer 1992; Samet and
Aref 1995; Yuan 1999). Because GIS software cannot
facilitate information computation for entities that
are beyond the representation capabilities of its data
models, geographic representation and data models
are critical to improving geographic query processing
and information analysis (Worboys et al. 1990).
Traditionally, GIS data modeling has empha-
sized spatial representation of the real world (Peu-
quet 1984). Depending on the nature of geo-
graphic phenomena, object- or field-based data
models have been used to represent discrete enti-
ties or continuous fields in a GIS, respectively (Cou-
clelis 1992). This approach assumes that a geo-
graphic phenomenon is either discrete or contin-
May Yuan is Associate Professor at the Department of Geography,
The University of Oklahoma, 100 E. Boyd Street, Sarkey Energy
Center 684, Norman, OK 73019. Tel: (405) 325-4293. E-mail:
<myuan@ou.edu>.
enous entities with distinct locations and boundar-
ies, such as power poles, highways, and buildings.
They hold relatively permanent identities and are
identified as individuals prior to any recognition
of their attributes (Couclelis 1992). Many GIS
researchers applied such a feature-based (or entity-
based) approach to handle geographic data (e.g.,
Mark 1993; Usery 1993, 1996; Tang et al. 1996).
In contrast, continuous phenomena are distrib-
uted continuously across space with undetermined
boundaries. They are distributions of single-value
geographic variables (called fields), such as tem-
perature, terrain, and soil type. Such a field-based
approach is frequently used in thematic mapping.
Philosophically, the object-based representation
corresponds to a container view of space, which
exists independently and is populated with dis-
crete entities. In contrast, the field-based repre-
sentation reflects a plenum perspective of space,
in that “(t)here is no such thing as empty space,
i.e., space without field. Space–time does not claim
existence on its own, but only as a structural
quality of the field” (Einstein 1960, Relativity, p.
155, quoted in Couclelis 1992). Hence, the object-
based representation allows empty space, but the
field-based representation requires all space be
exhausted (i.e., every location must have one and
only one value in a field). The object- and field-
based representations closely relate to the way we
conceptualize and reason geographic problems
and have been the basis for the design of many
GIS data models (Yuan, forthcoming).

Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2001, pp.83-96
 In contrast to purely object- or field-like phe-
nomena, many geographic phenomena have both
object and field characteristics. For example, a wild-
fire is in some sense a discrete object with a clear
fire-front line, but there are identifiable spatial and
temporal variations within a fire. A wildfire may
or may not be continuous, and may or may not
start again after almost being extinguished. Yuan
(1997) suggested that human conceptualization of
wildfires can be both object- and field-like, and
information needs for wildfire research and oper-
ations require both object- and field-based repre-
sentations. In addition to wildfire, dynamic geo-
graphic phenomena (such as insect infestation, pre-
cipitation, and hurricanes) also suggest the need
for an integrated object–field representation.
Besides representing space, object- and field-
based approaches have incorporated time into spa-
tial databases. As early as the 1960s, Berry (1964)
proposed a geographic matrix for structuring geo-
graphic data in three dimensions of theme, loca-
tion, and time, and later Sinton (1978) argued
that the three dimensions pose constraints to geo-
graphic analysis in which we fix one dimension,
control another, and measure the other. Particu-
larly in GIS, Langran and Chrisman (1988) pio-
neered research in spatio-temporal data modeling
by posing a space–time composite model. Space–
time composites are spatially homogeneous and
temporally uniform single-attribute units, each
of which shows a distinct change in its attribute
value over time. Following Langran and Chris-
man’s study, numerous data models have been pro-
posed to incorporate time into spatial databases
(see Abraham and Roddick 1996 for a comprehen-
sive survey). Most of these models record “changes”
to locations or to geographic features.
To incorporate time with space in the field-
based approach, changes are either recorded with
grid cells or spatially exhausted polygons. When
grids are used to represent the field, each grid cell
(a pre-defined location) is associated with a vari-
able-length list of attribute values to denote suc-
cessive changes in the cell (Langran 1992a). When
changes are related to spatially exhausted polygons
(such as vegetation or soil classes), “amendment
vectors” are used to represent boundary changes
of correspondent geographic features with spa-
tially homogeneous single-value attributes (Lan-
gran 1989; 1992a). Amendment vectors can also
be used for linear features (such as roads and
rivers) in an object-based representation (Langran
1992a). Additional change-based data models were
proposed by Hazelton (1991) and Kelmelis (1991)
to account for 4-dimensional space–time Cartesian
84
space. A GIS supporting these change-based data
models is effective for facilitating queries about
changes at locations. One problem with the change-
based approach, however, is that it uses geomet-
rically indexed methods that “make the coordi-
nate system of the layer into the primary index of
the spatial representation” (Raper and Livingstone
1995, p. 360). Consequently, the change-based
approach lacks support for representing dynamic
geographic phenomena (such as wildfires) which
may move, split, merge, or incarnate, and whose
attributes may vary at locations and over time.
To improve the change-based approach that
uses location or geometry for primary data index-
ing, we need a GIS framework that can track infor-
mation about the “where,” “what,” and “when”
of geographic phenomena (Peuquet 1994). One
of the greatest challenges to the design of such
a framework is the representation of dynamic
geographic phenomena. There have been many
attempts to extend GIS data models to represent
dynamic geographic phenomena, notably the
Spatio-temporal Object Model (Worboys 1994),
the Event-based SpatioTemporal Data Model
(ESTDM—Peuquet and Duan 1995) and the Object-
Oriented geomorphologic data model (OOgeo-
morph—Raper and Livingstone 1995). These data
models not only can represent change in properties
at fixed locations (as the change-based approach
discussed above) but also can keep tracks of how
an identified discrete object changes its properties
and location. The idea of keeping track of geo-
graphic entities through time implies an object-
based emphasis that aims to represent the evolu-
tion of individual entities in a space–time frame.
The Spatiotemporal Object Model represents geo-
graphic features as discrete 3D spatio-temporal
objects (1D time and 2D space). A spatio-temporal
object is an aggregate of spatio-temporal atoms,
the largest spatially and temporally homogeneous
units which properties hold in both space and time.
The Spatiotemporal Object Model uses spatio-tem-
poral atoms to denote changes to a spatio-tempo-
ral object. As such, the model can represent how
a spatio-temporal object evolves in geometry, prop-
erties, and location. Peuquet and Duan (1995) took
another approach that uses time as the basis to
organize spatial data. Their ESTDM model records
event sequences with a base grid (representing a
single geographic theme, such as a lake) and a
sequence of changes to its grid cells (as changes to
the theme at different locations). In the ESTDM,
each of the event sequences “represents the spatio-
temporal manifestation of some process” (Peuquet
and Duan 1995, p. 11), so that we can keep tracks
Cartography and Geographic Information Science
of how the process evolves in space and time. Alter-
natively, the OOgeomorph model was designed
with an emphasis on the idea that time is a property
of identified entities (such as a shoreline), not an
attribute of geometrically indexed spatial objects,
as is assumed in the change-based approach. Thus,
entities are represented by their forms, processes,
and materials and are defined by the user accord-
ing to application needs.
The Spatiotemporal Object Model, ESTDM,
and OOgeomorph model contribute to represent-
ing dynamic geographic phenomena in three dis-
tinct ways. The Spatiotemporal Object Model pres-
ents a hierarchical structure of discrete spatio-tem-
poral objects and atoms, with which the spatial
composition of a geographic phenomenon can
be explicitly recorded over time to describe the
distribution of its attribute within the geographic
phenomenon, such as the evolution of land-use
change. ESTDM demonstrates the use of time
to organize changes at locations for a given geo-
graphic theme, whose attribute varies in space and
time. With this time-based organization, the evolu-
tion of a single-attribute theme (an event) in space
and time can be explicitly stored in a GIS data-
base. The OOgeomorph model illustrates a rela-
tive space–time framework in which geographic
entities are represented by point data objects aggre-
gated within a spatial and temporal extent, as
opposed to time-stamping methods that are com-
monly used to incorporate time as an attribute
for spatial objects in GIS databases (c.f. Yuan
1999). Although the three spatio-temporal data
models significantly improve GIS representation
for dynamic geographic phenomena, challenges
remain particularly for phenomena that possess
both object and field characteristics. Dynamic phe-
nomena such as wildfire do not fit any of the three
spatio-temporal data models very well. The Spatio-
temporal Object Model cannot capture the field
aspect of a wildfire that varies continuously within
a burn area. ESTDM can incorporate a wildfire’s
field characteristics but cannot represent its discrete
object properties, such as moving, splitting, merg-
ing, and incarnation. The OOgeomorph model
is designed to model linear features using point-
based data, so that it is difficult to capture the areal
properties of a wildfire.
In this research, a conceptual framework is pro-
posed by extending ideas from the three spatio-
temporal data models to represent dynamic geo-
graphic phenomena that possess both field and
object characteristics in space and time. The pro-
posed framework builds upon both vector and
raster data models to fulfill the needs for discrete
Vol. 28, No. 2
objects and continuous fields that are embraced
by dynamic geographic phenomena as discussed
above. Rainstorms have been chosen as an exam-
ple of such dynamic geographic phenomena. Like
wildfire, precipitation varies within a rainstorm
and is best represented as a rain field, but individ-
ual rainstorms may be isolated as objects that
move in a space–time frame (Niemczynowicz 1987).
Our goal is to represent precipitation events and
processes as result of rainstorms at a geographic
scale so that a GIS database can explicitly store
data about where and when precipitation events
occurred and how precipitation processes progress
in geographic space and over time.
Using precipitation data as an example, this
study aims to build a conceptual framework that
represents and organizes precipitation events and
processes in a GIS database. This research uses
a sample precipitation data set covering April 15
to May 22, 1998, in Oklahoma, U.S.A. During
this period, numerous storms moved across Okla-
homa, producing precipitation across the state. In
order to derive knowledge about the spatio-tempo-
ral behavior of these storms, a conceptual frame-
work has been developed to identify and assemble
events and processes from the precipitation data
and store them as complex data objects. While the
conceptual framework could be implemented in
any GIS, Arc/INFO GIS 7.2 (Environmental Sys-
tems and Research Institute, Redlands, Califor-
nia) was used in this research to prove the con-
cept. Algorithms to support spatio-temporal que-
ries on these storms were implemented in the Arc-
Macro Language (AML—Environmental Systems
and Research Institute, Redlands, California). The
following section presents the conceptual frame-
work of the proposed GIS representation for events
and processes. Then comes a discussion of query
support for precipitation behavior based on the
proposed representation. The second and third
sections together give an overview of the proposed
representation’s capabilities to enhance GIS sup-
port for complex spatio-temporal queries from
a massive GIS database. The last section high-
lights the major findings and directions for further
research.
Representing Events and
Processes
In this study, an event is defined as an occurrence
of something significant, whereas a process is a
sequence of dynamically related states that shows
how something evolves in space and time. An event
85
can be extreme occurrences (such as
floods), lasting conditions (such as
prolonged drought), or trends (such
as global warming). A process is a
continuing course of development
involving many changes in space
and time, and it is often captured by
states. An event may consist of one
or multiple processes, a process may
relate to multiple events, and a state
may consist of footprints from one
or more processes. Conceptually, an
event is a spatial and temporal aggre-
gate of its associated processes; and
a process is measured by its foot-
prints in space and time. When an
event occurs, its processes detail the
spatial and temporal relationships
among the elements involved, and
its states denote spatial influences
at a point in time. While the terms— Figure 1. A conceptual structure of an event and its processes and states. An
event, process, and state—used here event is a spatiotemporal aggregate of processes, and a process is a sequential
do not correspond closely to their change of states in space and time. Events operate at the coarsest spatial
usage in database management sys- and temporal resolution, while states have the finest spatial and temporal
tems (Date 1995; Langran 1992ab), resolution.
the definitions agree with general
ity, and then assembles these processes in space
applications in earth systems science (Schneider
and time to form events. The following subsections
1996) and in popular dictionaries (such as Webster’s
demonstrate the use of precipitation data to popu-
New World Dictionary).
late the proposed conceptual framework that orga-
In the case of precipitation, an event marks the
nizes events, processes, and states in a space–time
occurrence of precipitation in the study area (Okla-
hierarchy.
homa); as long as it rains there is a precipitation
event. A process describes how it rains; that is the
transition of precipitation states in space and time
(such as the transition of rain areas of a storm The Data Set
from T1 to T2). A state marks where it rains at a The study uses a set of hourly digital precipita-
given time. There are several basic forms of pre- tion arrays (DPAs) during the period of April 15
cipitation processes. Convective cells arranged in to May 22, 1998, for the state of Oklahoma. Every
a moving line followed by a region of stratiform hour (usually between half past and the top of
rain are most common in the study area (Houze et the hour), the HAS (Hydrometeorological Analysis
al. 1990). Each of the convective cells (rainstorms) and Support) forecaster at the Arkansas-Red River
is an independent process that produces rain in Forecast Center creates a gridded precipitation
a localized area. Because multiple isolated rain- field based on composite imagery from next genera-
storms can develop simultaneously in the study tion radars (NEXRAD) and observations at ground
area, a precipitation event may consist of several weather stations. DPA data represent raster-based
precipitation processes. Consequently, an event is hourly accumulated precipitation and are used for
a spatio-temporal aggregate of all coexisting pre- hydrological modeling (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/
cipitation processes, and the spatial and temporal abrfc/pcpnpage.html). The DPAs are projected in
extent of an event is the conjunction of all its the Hydrologic Rainfall Analysis Project (HRAP)
precipitation processes. Applying the conceptual coordinate system and are archived in NetCDF
framework of events and processes (Figure 1), the format (Rew and Davis 1990). In general, the size
study first identifies precipitation areas from pre- of an HRAP grid cell is 4 km × 4 km. However, the
cipitation states (such as states in Figure 2), associ- geographic area covered by an HRAP grid, in fact,
ates these precipitation areas (footprints) to form decreases towards the poles, although the varia-
processes based on spatial and temporal proxim- tion is generally negligible in hydrological appli-

86 Cartography and Geographic Information Science

 Starting Time Ending Time cations, especially in a mid-latitude area such as
Event # Duration (hours)
(mm/dd/yy/hh) (mm/dd/yy/hh) Oklahoma (Hoke et al. 1981). NetCDF files for
Event 1 04/15/98/00 04/15/98/08 9 hourly DPAs were imported into Arc/INFO GIS
Event 2 04/15/98/18 04/16/98/14 21 layers of hourly precipitation accumulation. In
Event 3 04/16/98/16 04/16/98/16 1
total there are 882 layers representing the distri-
butions of hourly precipitation accumulation in
Event 4 04/16/98/21 04/16/98/23 3
Oklahoma from 5 pm (00Z) on April 15 to 9am
Event 5 04/17/98/20 04/18/98/14 19 (14Z) of May 22, 1998 (Figure 2).
Event 6 04/18/98/17 04/19/98/11 19

Event 7 04/20/98/06 04/20/98/07 2

Assembling Events and Processes
Event 8 04/20/98/10 04/21/98/07 22
The assembling of events and processes begins by
Event 9 04/21/98/19 04/22/98/01 7
identifying spatial discontinuity in precipitation of
Event 10 04/22/98/07 04/22/98/10 4
individual DPA layers. Based on the above discus-
Event 11 04/25/98/04 04/25/98/12 9 sions on the precipitation dynamics in Oklahoma,
Event 12 04/25/98/14 04/25/98/16 3 the underlined assumption is that any rain area
(continuously precipitation area) results from a
Event 13 04/26/98/00 04/29/98/04 77
rainstorm (a convective precipitation cell), and
Event 14 04/29/98/08 04/29/98/11 4 any rainstorm results from a precipitation process
Even 15 04/30/98/22 05/01/98/03 6 (Figure 2). While the amount of rainfall may vary
Event 16 05/01/98/20 05/03/98/04 33 within the rain area (showing a field characteristic),
the area has continuous rainfall and is distinguish-
Event 17 05/03/98/06 05/03/98/19 14
able from a no-rain area in the DPA data (showing
Event 18 05/03/98/21 05/04/98/01 5 an object characteristic). Therefore, raster repre-
Event 19 05/04/98/08 05/04/98/18 11 sentation is applied to handle its field characteris-
Event 20 05/05/98/06 05/05/98/16 11
tics and to show how rainfall varies within its rain
area. For individual rain areas (corresponding to
Event 21 05/05/98/18 05/05/98/18 1
isolated rainstorms), vector polygons are applied
Event 22 05/05/98/23 05/06/98/12 14 to represent spatial extents of these rainstorms.
Event 23 05/06/98/18 05/07/98/06 13 Consequently, the conceptual model of a precipita-
Event 24 05/07/98/20 05/08/98/05 10
tion process is a set of temporally related areas of
precipitation, and each of the precipitation areas
Event 25 05/08/98/20 05/10/98/02 31
corresponds to a group of grid cells that show
Event 26 05/14/98/00 05/14/98/00 1 how precipitation varies in that area (Figure 3). In
Event 27 05/15/98/02 05/15/98/15 14 this conceptual framework, the conjunctions of spa-
Event 28 05/17/98/04 05/17/98/06 3
tially and temporally connected rain areas denote
the development of a process, which is represented
Event 29 05/18/98/06 05/18/98/07 2
by a set of states to show how the precipitation
Event 30 05/18/98/11 05/18/98/11 1 progresses in space and time. In some cases, mul-
Event 31 05/18/98/19 05/19/98/01 7 tiple isolated storms may occur at a given time.
Therefore, a precipitation state may relate to more
Event 32 05/19/98/06 05/19/98/06 1
than one process when multiple isolated rain areas
Event 33 05/19/98/08 05/19/98/08 1
exist simultaneously. It is necessary to group rain
Event 34 05/19/98/11 05/19/98/11 1 areas produced by the same process (i.e., the same
Event 35 05/19/98/21 05/19/98/21 1 rainstorm) across precipitation states to show the
transitional states of this process and distinguish
Event 36 05/20/98/01 05/20/98/02 2
its rain areas from those from other rainstorms.
Event 37 05/20/98/14 05/21/98/00 11 To this end, the study takes a rule-based approach
Event 38 05/21/98/16 05/21/98/19 4 to build links among rain areas of the same pro-
Event 39 05/21/98/22 05/22/98/02 5
cess from the 882 hourly accumulative precipita-
tion layers based on a simple rule:1
Event 40 05/22/98/05 05/22/98/05 1
If a rain area at time T1 does not overlap
Table 1. Forty storm events id entified from the 882 hourly p recip itation layers. with any rain area at T2, or the nearest

1
Note that this research uses hourly data, so the time lag between T1 and T2 is one hour.

Vol. 28, No. 2 87

Figure 2. A sample data set of hourly precipitation accumulation (digital precipitation arrays, DPA) stamped with Greenwich
time (Z). The panels show a rain storm passing through Oklahoma from the north to the southeast. Colors indicate rain areas.
Different colors mark different amounts of hourly accumulated precipitation from the rain storm. There are a total of 822 DPAs
in the data set.

rain area is beyond a distance of x to the
region, then T1 marks the end state of
this rainstorm. Otherwise, the rain areas in
T1 and T2 belong to the same rainstorm
process. In this research, the distance x was
set to 70 km, which is the distance that
a common fast-moving storm travels in an
hour in Oklahoma.
Figure 4 shows the programmatic procedures
of assembling a precipitation process by imple-
menting the rule in three decisions (shown in dia-
monds). Although the rule merely considers spa-
tial and temporal continuity of precipitation pro-
cesses, it is consistent with methods developed by
Marshall (1980) to model storm movement. Two
related research topics deserve attention here. First,
more sophisticated rules should be added to con-
sider precipitation dynamics, such as the distribu-
tion of fronts, air pressure, temperature, humidity
and winds. Second, identification of processes is a
function of spatial and temporal granularity. Modi-
fication of the rule is necessary if studies use pre-
cipitation data at different spatial resolution (such
as 1 km) or temporal steps (such as 5-minute or
daily precipitation). Both of the research topics are
being undertaken by the authors and will be dis-
cussed in future publications.
Once processes have been assembled, we can
start building events. In the proposed conceptual
framework, a precipitation event consists of precip-
itation processes that occur simultaneously or con-
tinuously in a time sequence (i.e., no breaks in pre-
cipitation in the study area during a period of time,
Figure 1). Hence, a precipitation event can be built
by linking the processes between starting time of
its earliest process and the ending time of its latest
process. As a result, the temporal extent of a given
event is an aggregation of all temporal extents of
its processes. Likewise, the spatial extent of a given
event is an aggregation of all spatial extents of its
processes. Table 1 lists 40 identified precipitation
events out of the 882 hourly precipitation layers.

88 Cartography and Geographic Information Science


Figure 3. A process is formed by a temporal sequence of states,
and an event is the spatial and temporal aggregation of its
processes. In this figure, numbers are identifiers. The precipitation The proposed hierarchical framework represents
process (Process 1) consists of three states (State 1, State 2,
State 3). State 3 has two rain areas. Event 1 only consists of one
process (Process 1), although an event may have more than one
process.
The longest event lasted 77 hours, while, on aver-
age, an event lasted 10 hours.
The events, processes, and original DPA layers
are organized into a hierarchical representation
(Figure 5). In such representations, an event-com-
posite layer consists of all identified events, each
of which corresponds to a spatial object in the data
model representing its spatial extent. The event-
composite layer is associated with an event-attri-
bute table recording starting time, ending time,
and other characteristics of individual events when
necessary, such as property damage, maximum
wind speed, or maximum rain intensity. In addi-
tion, every event has an event identifier (Event
ID), which can relate an event to its process-com-
posite layer. A process-composite layer represents
the development of precipitation processes associ-
ated with a particular event (as illustrated in Figure
Vol. 28, No. 2
3). Each process-composite layer consists of pro-
cesses that constitute a precipitation event, and
these processes collectively show how precipita-
tion developed and progressed during the start
and end of the event. In a process-composite
layer, every process has a process identifier (Pro-
cess ID) and identifiers of all the associated
states. Each state is named by its time of measure-
ment. For example, a state with ID 04159800Z
is a spatial distribution of rainfall measured at
5 pm on April 15, 1998. If a process results in
more than one rain areas (footprints) in a state
(as shown in State 3 in Figure 3), the process will
have two entries of rain areas with the state ID,
such as (State 3, Rain Area 1) and (State 3, Rain
Area 2).
With the hierarchical framework of events,
processes, and states, the database is ready for
complex spatio-temporal queries about precipi-
tation. For the state layers, field representation
(spatially exhausted polygons or raster grids) is
used to represent rainfall distribution. Raster
grids are used to conform to the DPA data struc-
ture. A state list table is necessary to provide time
information of states for the process attribute
table and precipitation statistics in each state.
Information Support for Queries
about Events and Processes
events and processes as individual data objects,
and, therefore, their properties and relation-
ships are readily computable in a GIS. This
research particularly emphasizes information
about duration, movement, frequency, transition,
and spatio-temporal relationships of the identi-
fied 40 precipitation events and other geographic
features (such as watersheds).
Queries on Duration, Movement,
Frequency, and Transition
A good understanding of events and processes
requires spatio-temporal information about their
duration, movement, and frequency. The proposed
hierarchical framework (Figure 5) offers direct sup-
port to query such spatio-temporal information
because events and processes are explicitly repre-
sented in the framework that can directly associ-
ate pertinent attributes to events and processes.
Using the hierarchical framework, spatio-tempo-
ral information about events can be computed
based on event objects on the event-composite
layer, whereas information regarding processes
89
can be derived from pro-
cess objects on the process-
composite layer. Duration
describes the life span of
an object by its starting
and ending times. Once an
event is identified, starting
and ending times become
basic attributes of the event
and are recorded in the
event-attribute table (Table
1, Figure 5). The dura-
tion of an event object
can be easily computed by
the difference between its
starting and ending times.
Likewise, the duration of a
process object is available
by computing the time dif-
ference of its starting and
ending states among all
states associated with the Figure 4. Assembling a precipitation process from snapshots of hourly digital precipitation
process in the process-attri- arrays (DPA).
bute table (Figure 5).
Query support for infor- erated to 47.213 km/hr, reduced to 39.998 km/hr,
mation about movement and frequency requires addi- and then ended at 34.055 km/hr. The result can
tional computation because these attributes may vary also be shown graphically by animating all states in
in space and time. The movement of an event can these processes to show how these processes prog-
be determined by its travel distance and travel speed. ress in space and time.
The travel distance of an event can be computed Similarly to the speed of a process, the speed
based on the net shift of the centroids of process areas of an event is determined by the ratio between its
of the identified event on the event-composite layer. travel distance and travel time. The travel distance
As there may be multiple processes in an event, and of an event can be computed based on the travel
each process may behave differently, the movement distances of all its processes, and the ratio between
of an event should be described by the movements of its travel distance and total duration of the event
its processes, collectively as a generalized measure or is its (generalized) average speed of movement.
individually as a detailed description. In either case, Because such computation only considers shifts in
an appropriate process-composite layer is first identi- centroids during the travel time of an event, the
fied via the specified Event ID (Figure 5). speed calculated is geometrically based and is most
Travel distances and speeds of processes on suitable for evenly distributed precipitation. How-
the identified process-composite layer are then cal- ever, in many cases, precipitation is distributed
culated. The travel distance can be computed by unevenly in a rain area, as shown in Figure 2. In
applying Euclidean distance or some weighted dis- such cases, it is more appropriate to use precip-
tance functions (such as weighted by area or by pre- itation-weighted centroids (i.e., multiply x and y
cipitation) between the two centroids of rain areas coordinates of the centroid by the total precipita-
at Ti and Ti+1. Because this research uses hourly tion of its rain area) as precipitation centers to
DPA data, the travel time (i.e. Ti - Ti+1) between compute the travel distance of an event. Physically
the centroids of the two rain areas is 1 hour, and based precipitation centers (such as those based
the hourly speed of a process in a given hour is on dynamics) may be best used for computing
equal to the distance it travels during that hour. In travel distance, while precipitation-weighted cen-
Figure 6, examples are given for Processes 1 and troids offer a generalized and simple alternative.
2 in Event 1. Process 1 lasted for 5 hours (from Figure 7 shows the speed distributions of some rain-
04159800 Z to 04159805 Z, i.e., 5 pm to 10 pm on storms in Event 1 based on precipitation-weighted
April 15, 1998). The speed of Process 1 started as centroids of rain areas. In complex cases of multi-
53.587 km/hr, slowed down to 9.530 km/hr, accel- cell stratiform storms, individual precipitation pro-

90 Cartography and Geographic Information Science

 measures. Contrarily, an
event-composite layer in
the proposed framework
embraces the spatial
objects of all individual
events, and thus requires
only one spatial overlay
of the area of interest and
the event-composite layer.
The number of events
occurring in a defined
area (i.e., frequency) is the
number of events inter-
secting the area. The fre-
quency of precipitation
processes in an area can
also be determined by
first identifying the events
in the area and then
retrieving their processes
that intersect the area
on the corresponding
Figure 5. A hierarchical framework of GIS data about events, processes, and states. The event (process-compos-
event-composite layer consists of all events. Each event is associated with a process- ite) layers.
composite layer (Event ID). Each process-composite layer consists of all processes The capability of the
embraced in an event. Each process is associated with states and all rain areas within each proposed event-process-
state. A state ID corresponds to its time of measurement. Each state layer consists of all rain state hierarchy to facil-
areas at a given time. For example, Event 1 may consist of processes 2 and 3. Process 2 may itate information com-
consist of Rain Area 1 in State 2 and rain areas 1 and 2 in State 3. Process 3 may consist of putation on duration,
Rain Area 2 in State 2 and rain areas 2 and 3 in State 3. movement, and fre-
quency greatly enhances
cesses may have different travel directions than the GIS support for event-
overall precipitation structure (such as a front line). and process-based spatio-temporal queries, which
Nevertheless, the resultant movement of a process are important to the understanding of the pattern
reflects the combined movements of the overall and behavior of dynamic geographic phenomena.
precipitation structure and its own. A generalized For example, GIS users will be able to obtain more
path of the precipitation event that aggregates all in-depth knowledge about precipitation in a geo-
graphic region from a large rainfall database than
associated processes in space and time will pro-
simple retrieval of raw data. Using the example of
vide a general movement of the entire precipita-
Oklahoma hourly precipitation data from April 15
tion structure. The proposed framework provides
to May 22, 1998, a further understanding of this
direct support for computing travel distance along
rain season can be obtained by posing the follow-
such a generalized path for such complex cases,
ing sample queries:
because all processes within an event are recorded
1. How many precipitation events were recorded
on a process-composite layer. The spatial and tem- in the period in Oklahoma? (Asking informa-
poral extents of these processes are explicitly rep- tion about frequency.)
resented and readily available for computation. 2. How long did these events usually last? (Asking
Frequency is also a function of space and time. information about duration.)
As the area and period of interest vary, the number 3. How many precipitation cells were produced
of occurrences changes accordingly. Without the in these events? (Asking information about fre-
proposed framework, it is necessary to overlay the quency.)
area of interest with all 882 DPA layers to answer a 4. What was the general path of these events?
query about how often it rained in the area in (Asking information about movement.)
the last 30 days. This is a daunting GIS task (over- 5. What was the average, maximum or minimum
laying 883 layers: 882 DPA layers plus 1 layer speed of these events? (Asking information
showing the area of interest) by any computational about movement.)

Vol. 28, No. 2 91

Figure 6. A query on the travel speed of a precipitation event and the response from the prototype system.
Because characteristics of precipitation events
and processes are recorded explicitly in the pro-
posed framework, these queries can be answered
efficiently. For the first query above, the number
of precipitation events recorded during the period
is equal to the number of events recorded on the
event-composite layer. To answer the second query,
calculate the duration of these events by subtract-
ing starting time from ending time of the events in
the event-attribute table. The third query seeks the
number of precipitation cells, which is equal to the
total number of precipitation processes included in
all events. Procedures described earlier to compute
event movements based on shifts in simple geomet-
rical centroids or precipitation-weighted centroids
can be used to calculate the speed and path of pro-
cesses in these events to answer the fourth query.
The average, maximal, or minimal speed of events
(query five) can be obtained from calculated pro-
cess speed lists (see the tables in Figure 6).
Figure 6 illustrates a response to a query from
our prototype system on the travel speed of a pre-
cipitation event. The result shows that the event
(Event ID = 1) consists of 26 processes. In the
sample table, Processes 1 and 2 demonstrate that
a rainstorm can travel at various speeds over space
92
and time. Other options in the prototype are also
based on the proposed hierarchical framework for
queries that seek to determine the number of
storms (the total number of storms in the database
is equal to the total number of processes in the
process attribute table), rainfall statistics (duration
and precipitation amounts available in the event-
or process-attribute tables), movement (paths and
speeds based on methods discussed earlier, see
Figure 7 for a sample answer to such queries),
water received (by first overlaying the area with
the event-composite layer, the process-composite
layers, and the states to compute the total rainfall
within the area), and frequency (number of events
or processes that occur in an area of interest based
on calculations discussed earlier).
Spatio-temporal Relationships Queries
In addition to characterizing individual precipi-
tation events and processes, information about
their spatio-temporal relationships with other geo-
graphic features (such as watersheds, counties, and
a particular land cover type) is valuable to under-
standing the influence of precipitation and manag-
ing water resources. Spatio-temporal relationships
include associations (proximity in space and time)
Cartography and Geographic Information Science
Figure 7. Examples of storm movements. Each storm is marked with starting and ending times in the form of Month/
Day/Year/Hour, in Greenwich standard time. Each storm path is also annotated with speeds (km/hr) which change quite
significantly along individual storm paths. Arrows indicate direction of movement.
and interactions (actions and effects in space and
time), which are dynamic and complex beyond the
query support of traditional GIS data models because
to support queries of this kind, events and processes
must be represented explicitly in a GIS database.
The proposed hierarchical framework of events
and processes facilitates queries on spatio-tempo-
ral relationships through spatial joins over time.
An important function of the proposed framework
is the use of events and processes as information
filters to identify layers that need to be analyzed,
instead of searching on all data layers exhaustively.
To find out how many events interact with a geo-
graphic feature, overlay the feature with the event-
composite layer. Because an event on the event-
composite layer corresponds to a data object of
multiple polygons representing its spatial extent
(Figure 3), one overlay will reveal those events
that intersect with the specified geographic fea-
ture. Further information on how a given event
interacts with the specified geographic feature can
be derived by overlaying the event’s process-com-
posite layer with the specified geographic feature.
Alternatively, a spatial join of an identified event
from the event-composite layer and a layer of geo-
graphic features will reveal which geographic fea-
tures are influenced by the event.
Vol. 28, No. 2
Likewise, the spatial joins of a process-compos-
ite layer with a layer of geographic features will
reveal how processes interact with geographic fea-
tures across space and through time. For example,
a precipitation event may start in the upstream
portion of a river, travel along the river, and ulti-
mately produce rain for the entire watershed. Alter-
natively, the event may move in and out of the
watershed more than once and produce scattered
rain across the basin over time. The interactions of
a rainstorm and a watershed (such as precipitation
received in the watershed or runoff produced in
the watershed) may vary through time, which can
be revealed by a query on the amount of precipita-
tion from the rainstorm received in the watershed
(Figure 8). Similarly, the following sample queries
about spatio-temporal relationships can be solved
by the proposed framework of event objects, pro-
cess objects, and state layers:
1. How many rainstorms (precipitation cells, i.e.,,
processes) passed the city of Norman from
April 15 to May 22, 1998? (Asking information
about frequency based on an interaction con-
straint.)
2. How many rainstorms occurred in a given
watershed during the above period? How
much rain was received from each of these
93
 storms? (Asking information
about frequency and interac- Event#
the Event (h)
tion.)
Event 1
3. How often does a watershed
receive precipitation greater Event 2
than x amount? (Asking infor-
Event 9
mation about frequency based
on an interaction constraint.) Event 11
A prototype system has been
developed to test the proposed Event 13
framework’s support for these Event 16
event- and process-based queries.
The first query seeks the number Event 22
of processes occurring over an
Event 23
area and during a period of time.
With the proposed hierarchical Event 24
framework, such information is
Event 25
derived by selecting events that
occur within the period of time in Summary
the event-attribute table and over-
laying the area of interest with the Table 2. Results from a samp le event-b ased q uery: "Which p recip itation events
p assed watershed -50 from Ap ril 15 to May 22, 1999."
selected event layers to identify
the number of processes intersect-
ing the area. The second query can be answered
by the same procedures, plus retrieving the states
of the processes that intersect the area of interest
(i.e., the watershed). Table 2 shows the prototype
system’s response to the second query. The third
sample query seeks information about frequency
with a constraint on interaction (precipitation
received by the watershed is greater than a certain
amount). The procedures used to answer the
second query are readily applicable to the third
query that seeks to find the number of processes
and the precipitation received by the watershed
from each of the processes. After this, we can select
all processes that produced more than x amount
of precipitation in the watershed and divide their
number by seven (the length of the study period)
to calculate how often these processes occurred in
the watershed.
Concluding Remarks
This research proposes a hierarchical representa-
tion of events, processes, and states to enhance
GIS support for spatio-temporal queries and to
facilitate the ability of GIS users to cull informa-
tion about event- and process-based behaviors and
relationships in space and time. The hierarchical
representation consists of three data tiers: an event-
composite layer, process-composite layers, and
state layers. The event-composite layer records all
event objects and their attributes, such as starting
time and ending time. Each event is associated
94
Duration of Duration of the Event in Water Volume Received
the Watershed (h) in the Watershed (m3)
9 4 2 1 ,5 1 9
21 1 4 ,3 2 0
7 1 77
9 4 1 2 ,3 0 2
77 30 3 9 1 ,4 2 0
33 2 340
14 4 2 ,2 0 6
13 3 1 9 ,6 1 7
10 2 4 ,3 9 3
31 9 7 1 ,1 1 1
404 60 5 2 7 ,3 0 5
with a set of processes in a process-composite layer,
which is composed of process objects and their
attributes. Each process object is associated with
a set of state layers, and a process attribute table
is built to record characteristics for individual pro-
cesses. As such, object-like properties are stored
with events and processes, and field-like properties
are recorded on the state layers. The event-com-
posite layer provides information about “what has
happened,” whereas the process-composite layers
offer information regarding “how it (an event)
has happened.” GIS users can query the event-
composite layer to identify events of interest and
relate the identified events to corresponding pro-
cess-composite layers to obtain spatio-temporal
processes of these events. The proposed hierar-
chical framework offers two main advantages for
GIS query processing. First, it provides a basis
to integrate object and field data. Information
about events and processes (objects) are readily
available on the event-composite and process-com-
posite layers, while information on the spatio-tem-
poral distributions of a geographic theme (a field,
such as precipitation) at a given time is accessible
from states. In doing so, the proposed framework
is able to represent events (and processes) as dis-
crete objects, while at the same time, it represents
spatial and temporal variations of phenomena as
fields of states. Second, the proposed framework
enables events and processes to be used as filters
to determine which states need to be processed
for further information. The spatial and tempo-
ral extents of selected events and processes reduce
Cartography and Geographic Information Science
the number of data layers to be searched for a
query, and therefore the representation can signifi-
cantly enhance spatio-temporal query processing.
The conceptual design of the proposed frame-
work has been illustrated by using 882 digital pre-
cipitation arrays (DPAs) from April 15 to May 22,
1998. With the data, the hierarchical representa-
tion of events and processes is applied to enhance
GIS query support for precipitation events and
processes. The proposed hierarchical framework
enables GIS users to query information that is criti-
cal to the understanding of spatio-temporal behav-
ior of events and processes and their relationships
with other geographic features, such as rainstorm
movement and precipitation statistics in a water-
shed. With a simple rule based on spatial and tem-
poral continuity, 40 precipitation events and their
processes have been identified from the 882 DPAs
and incorporated in the hierarchical representa-
tion of events and processes. A prototype GIS
has been implemented for proof of concept. This
prototype demonstrates the potential enhance-
ment of spatio-temporal query support through
sample queries on frequency, duration, movement,
and spatio-temporal relationships. Because of the
enhanced query support, the hierarchical represen-
tation of events and processes strengthens the abil-
ity of a GIS to provide users information about
the dynamics of geographic phenomena, such as
paths and speeds of rainstorms. Further research
is underway to formalize complex spatio-temporal
queries and develop algorithms for data mining
and knowledge discovery on events and processes
based on the proposed representation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was funded by the National Imagery
and Mapping Agency (NIMA) through the
University Research Initiative Grant NMA202-
97-1-1024. Its contents are solely the responsibility
of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official views of the NIMA. The author would like
to thank anonymous reviewers, Dr. Terry Slocum
and Dr. David Bennett for their constructive com-
ments. The author also would like to thank Dr.
Chunlang Deng for his assistance on implement-
ing the conceptual framework and queries.
REFERENCES
Abraham T., and J. F. Roddick. 1996. Survey of spatiotempo-
ral databases. Technical Report CIS-96-011. Advanced
Computing Research Centre, School of Computer
and Information Science, University of South Austra-
lia. Adelaide, Southern Australia.
Vol. 28, No. 2
Berry, B. J. L. 1964. Approaches to spatial analysis: A
regional synthesis. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 54: 2-11.
Couclelis, H. 1992. People manipulate objects (but cul-
tivate fields). Proceedings of International Conference on
GIS. Pisa, Italy. Lecture Note 639. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag. 1992. pp 65-77.
Date, C. J. 1995. An introduction to database systems. 6th Edi-
tion. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Egenhofer, M. J. 1992. Why not SQL! International Jour-
nal of Geographical Information Systems 6(2): 71-85.
Hazelton, N. W. J. 1991. Integrating time, dynamic model-
ling and geographic information systems: Development of
four-dimensional GIS. Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Surveying and Land Information. The University
of Melbourne.
Hoke, J. E., J. L. Hayes, and L. G. Renninger. 1981. Map
projections and grid systems for meteorological applications.
Air Force Global Weather Central.
Houze, R. A. Jr., B. F. Smull, and P. Dodge. 1990. Meso-
scale organization of springtime rainstorms in Okla-
homa. Monthly Weather Review (March, 1990). pp.
613-54.
Kelmelis, J. A. 1991. Time and space in geographic infor-
mation: Toward a four-dimensional spatio-temporal data
model. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography,
Pennsylvania State University.
Langran, G., and N. R. Chrisman. 1988 A framework
for temporal geographic information. Cartographica
25(3):1-14.
Langran, G. 1989. A review of temporal database research
and its use in GIS applications. International Journal of
Geographical Information Systems, 3(3):215-232.
Langran, G. 1992a. Time in geographic information systems.
Bristol, Pennsylvania: Taylor & Francis.
Langran, G. 1992b. States, events, and evidence: The
principle entities of a temporal GIS. GIS/LIS ‘92
Proceedings. ACSM-ASPRS-URISA-AM/FM, San Jose,
1992. pp. 1: 416-35.
Lmielinski, T., and H. Mannila. 1996. A database per-
spective on knowledge discovery. Communications of
the ACM 39(11): 58-64.
Mark, D. M. 1993. Towards a theoretical framework
for geographic entity type. In: Frank, A. and I. Com-
pari (eds), Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis
for GIS. Conference on Spatial Information Theory
(COSIT’93), Elba Island, Italy. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag. pp 270-83.
Marshall, R. 1980. The estimation and distribution of
storm movement and storm structure using a correla-
tion analysis technique and rain gage data. Journal of
Hydrology 48(1/2): 19-39.
Niemczynowicz, J. 1987. Storm tracking using rain
gauge data. Journal of Hydrology 93(1/2): 135-52.
Peuquet, D. J. 1984. A conceptual framework and compari-
son of spatial data models. Cartographica 21(4): 66-113.
Peuquet, D. J. 1994. It’s about time: A conceptual frame-
work for the representation of temporal dynamics in
geographic information systems. Annals of the Associa-
tion of American Geographers 84(3):441-61.
95
Figure 8. An example of the prototype system’s response to a query on interactions between a rainstorm and a watershed.
A storm passed a watershed, and the watershed received different rainfall from the storm during the passage of the storm.
Peuquet, D. J., and N. Duan. 1995. An event-based spa-
tiotemporal data model (ESTDM) for temporal analy-
sis of geographical data. International Journal of Geo-
graphical Information Systems 9(1): 7-24.
Raper, J., and D. Livingstone. 1995. Development of a
geomorphologic spatial model using object-oriented
design. International Journal of Geographical Informa-
tion Systems 9(4): 359-84.
Rew, R. K., and G. P. Davis. 1990. NetCDF: An interface
for scientific data access. IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications 10(4):76-82.
Samet, H., and W. C. Aref. 1995. Spatial data models
and query processing. In: Kim, W. (ed.), Modern data-
base systems: The object model, interoperability, and beyond.
New York, ACM Press. pp. 338-60.
Schneider, S. H. (ed.) 1996. Encyclopedia of climate and
weather. New York, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Sinton, D. 1978. The inherent structure of information
as a constraint to analysis: Mapped thematic data as a
case study. In: Dutton, G. (ed.), Harvard papers on geo-
graphic information systems, Vol. 6. Reading, MA: Addi-
son Wesley.
Tang, A. Y. S., T. Adams, T., and E. L. Usery. 1996. A
spatial data structure design for a feature-based GIS.
96
International Journal of Geographical Information Science
10(5): 643-59.
Usery, E. L. 1993. Category theory and the structure
of features in geographic information systems. Carto-
graphic and Geographic Information Systems 20(1): 5-12.
Usery, E. L. 1996. A feature-based geographic informa-
tion system model. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 62(7):833-8.
Worboys, M. F., H. M. Hearnshaw, and D. J. Maguire.
1990. Object-oriented data modeling for spatial data-
bases. International Journal of Geographical Information
Systems 4(4): 369-83.
Worboys, M. F. 1994. A unified model of spatial and tem-
poral information. The Computer Journal 37(1): 26-34.
Yuan, M. 1997. Knowledge acquisition for building wild-
fire representation in geographic information sys-
tems. The International Journal of Geographic Informa-
tion Systems 11(8):723-45.
Yuan, M. 1999. Representing geographic information
to enhance GIS support for complex spatiotemporal
queries. Transactions in GIS 3(2):137-60.
Yuan, M. (In press). Representing spatial data. In: Boss-
ler, J. and R. McMaster (eds), Manual of geospatial sci-
ence and technology. Bristol, Pennsylvania: Taylor and
Francis.
Cartography and Geographic Information Science