TY - JOUR
T1 - The Use of Geographically Weighted Regression for Spatial Prediction
T2 - An Evaluation of Models Using Simulated Data Sets
AU - Harris, P.
AU - Fotheringham, A. S.
AU - Crespo, R.
AU - Charlton, M.
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgements Research presented in this paper was funded by a Strategic Research Cluster grant (07/SRC/I1168) by the Science Foundation Ireland under the National Development Plan. The authors gratefully acknowledge this support. We also thank the anonymous referees whose thoughtful comments and insights helped to improve the paper.
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - Increasingly, the geographically weighted regression (GWR) model is being used for spatial prediction rather than for inference. Our study compares GWR as a predictor to (a) its global counterpart of multiple linear regression (MLR); (b) traditional geostatistical models such as ordinary kriging (OK) and universal kriging (UK), with MLR as a mean component; and (c) hybrids, where kriging models are specified with GWR as a mean component. For this purpose, we test the performance of each model on data simulated with differing levels of spatial heterogeneity (with respect to data relationships in the mean process) and spatial autocorrelation (in the residual process). Our results demonstrate that kriging (in a UK form) should be the preferred predictor, reflecting its optimal statistical properties. However the GWR-kriging hybrids perform with merit and, as such, a predictor of this form may provide a worthy alternative to UK for particular (non-stationary relationship) situations when UK models cannot be reliably calibrated. GWR predictors tend to perform more poorly than their more complex GWR-kriging counterparts, but both GWR-based models are useful in that they provide extra information on the spatial processes generating the data that are being predicted.
AB - Increasingly, the geographically weighted regression (GWR) model is being used for spatial prediction rather than for inference. Our study compares GWR as a predictor to (a) its global counterpart of multiple linear regression (MLR); (b) traditional geostatistical models such as ordinary kriging (OK) and universal kriging (UK), with MLR as a mean component; and (c) hybrids, where kriging models are specified with GWR as a mean component. For this purpose, we test the performance of each model on data simulated with differing levels of spatial heterogeneity (with respect to data relationships in the mean process) and spatial autocorrelation (in the residual process). Our results demonstrate that kriging (in a UK form) should be the preferred predictor, reflecting its optimal statistical properties. However the GWR-kriging hybrids perform with merit and, as such, a predictor of this form may provide a worthy alternative to UK for particular (non-stationary relationship) situations when UK models cannot be reliably calibrated. GWR predictors tend to perform more poorly than their more complex GWR-kriging counterparts, but both GWR-based models are useful in that they provide extra information on the spatial processes generating the data that are being predicted.
KW - GWR
KW - Kriging
KW - Relationship heterogeneity
KW - Relationship nonstationarity
KW - Spatial interpolation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954860974&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77954860974&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11004-010-9284-7
DO - 10.1007/s11004-010-9284-7
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:77954860974
SN - 1874-8961
VL - 42
SP - 657
EP - 680
JO - Mathematical Geosciences
JF - Mathematical Geosciences
IS - 6
ER -