Well... I would say that IDW is still being used by a few consultants that
think that kriging is too complicated to apply and that the client will pay
them as long as the map looks pretty...
and less cynically IDW could give OK results if your data are gridded
and the pattern of variability is ostropic.
 
Pierre
 

Pierre Goovaerts

Chief Scientist at Biomedware

516 North State Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Voice: (734) 913-1098
Fax: (734) 913-2201 

http://home.comcast.net/~goovaerts/ 

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: Darla Munroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
        Sent: Tue 1/4/2005 3:06 PM 
        To: [email protected] 
        Cc: 
        Subject: RE: [ai-geostats] Regression vs. Kriging vs. Simulation vs. IDW
        
        


        Just to get the group's opinion on this -
        
        When do you use IDW?  When is it an advantageous technique, or what 
purposes
        does it well serve?
        
        Darla Munroe
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Syed Abdul Rahman Shibli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:19 PM
        To: jyarus; 'Seumas P. Rogan'; [email protected]
        Subject: Re: [ai-geostats] Regression vs. Kriging vs. Simulation vs. IDW
        
        
        Perhaps there is some confusion here. Simple kriging, for instance, can 
be
        decomposed to the familiar multilinear regression equation since if one
        assumes all the Z(Xi)s are independent variables, then in the covariance
        matrix C all of C(Xi,Xj) would be zero except for C(Xi,Xi). So
        
            LiC(Xi,Xi)=C(Xi,Xo)
        
        The lambdas here being the parameters of the regression equation. The
        intercept term is the sam, i.e. Lo=E(y)-LiE(xi).
        
        Not sure if the previous poster meant this or simply using the location 
as
        the "independent" variable.
        
        Cheers
        
        Syed
        
        On 3/1/05 5:34 PM, "jyarus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
        
        > Hi Seumas:
        >
        > I thought I would throw my 2 cents in regarding a comparison between
        kriging
        > and linear regression.
        >
        > While some of the responses have hit a few important differences, like
        > Kriging is a spatial estimator and regression is not, or kriging will
        honor
        > the original data and regression will not (unless residuals are added 
back
        > in - not often done).  For me, the critical point to be made is 
between
        the
        > collocated cokriging application and regression.  In collocated 
cokriging,
        > like simple regression, two variables are being used, one independent 
and
        > one dependent (of course, this could be expanded to more than one
        > independent variable).  The object is to predict a value of the 
dependent
        > variable from a relationship established between both the independent 
and
        > dependent observed values.  In the ensuing regression equation, there 
is a
        > slope term.  For example, in the equation, Y= c-bX, c is the 
intercept and
        b
        > is the slope.  As pointed out by one of the contributors, regression 
by
        > itself is not a spatial estimator, it is a point estimator.  As such, 
the
        > equation contains no information about the surrounding data or about 
the
        > relationship between the observed data and the unsampled location 
where a
        > desired estimate of the dependent variable is required.  In kriging 
(or
        > cokriging), the slope term "b" is replaced by a covariance matrix that
        > informs the system not only about the behavior of the surrounding data
        > points and the unsampled location (similar to distance weighting if
        > omnidirectional), but also about the spatial behavior within the
        > neighborhood - that is, how neighbors are spatially related to other
        > neighbors. Thus, the slope term "b" is replaced with a sophisticated
        > covariance matrix containing the spatial information.
        >
        > The ramifications of using simple regression instead of true spatial
        > estimator are significant if the results are presented in map form.  
While
        > this is often difficult to grasp for some, using simple regression as 
a
        > mapping tool will cause geographic portions of a map to consistently 
be
        > overestimated and others underestimated!  For example, you may find 
that
        all
        > the values estimated in the upper left quadrant of the map to be
        > overestimated, and those in the lower right to be underestimated.  We
        would
        > like to believe that a good spatial estimator will be unbiased, and 
the
        > distribution of the error variances over the area of a map will be 
uniform
        -
        > no one part of the map will preferentially over- or underestimated.  
The
        > bias brought about by the slope term in simple regression can be 
easily
        > tested and proved.
        >
        > I have attached a short paper my partner Richard Chambers and I 
published
        in
        > the Canadian Recorder a few years back which addressed this issue.  
The
        > article talks about seismic attributes related to petroleum reservoir
        > characterization.  However, beginning around page 10 or 11, we give an
        > example that demonstrates the above points.
        >
        > I hope this is informative and useful.
        >
        > King Regards,
        >
        > Jeffrey M. Yarus
        > ------------------------------------
        > QGSI
        > Jeffrey M. Yarus
        > Partner
        > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        > 2900 Wilcrest, Suite 370
        > Houston, Texas  77042
        > tel: (713) 789-9331
        > fax: (713) 789-9318
        > mobile: (832) 630-7128
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Seumas P. Rogan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
        > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 1:14 PM
        > To: [email protected]
        > Subject: [ai-geostats] Regression vs. Kriging vs. Simulation vs. IDW
        >
        >
        > Hello everyone,
        >
        > I apologize if this question is too elementary for this list;
        > I want to understand the key differences between linear regression,
        > kriging, conditional simulation and other interpolation techniques 
such as
        > IDW or splines in the analyses of spatial data. I would like to know 
the
        > assumptions, strengths and weaknesses of each method, and when one 
method
        > should be preferred to another. I browsed the archives and looked at 
some
        > of the on-line papers, but they are written at a level beyond my own
        > current understanding. It seems to me that this would be a great 
topic for
        > the first chapter of an introductory spatial analysis textbook. Can 
anyone
        > recommend any basic textbooks or references on this topic?
        > Any assistance you can offer would be appreciated.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        >
        > Seumas Rogan
        >
        >
        >
        > * By using the ai-geostats mailing list you agree to follow its rules
        > ( see http://www.ai-geostats.org/help_ai-geostats.htm )
        >
        > * To unsubscribe to ai-geostats, send the following in the subject or 
in
        the
        > body (plain text format) of an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        >
        > Signoff ai-geostats
        
        
        
        
        
        

* By using the ai-geostats mailing list you agree to follow its rules 
( see http://www.ai-geostats.org/help_ai-geostats.htm )

* To unsubscribe to ai-geostats, send the following in the subject or in the 
body (plain text format) of an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Signoff ai-geostats

Reply via email to