How do the assumptions of spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity affect the choice between ordinary kriging and cokriging? 

The choice between ordinary kriging and cokriging in spatial analysis is significantly influenced by the assumptions of spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity. Ordinary kriging is fundamentally based on the assumption of intrinsic homogeneity, implying that the spatial process is consistent across the study area. This assumption is critical for the method's effectiveness in predicting unknown values at unmeasured locations. However, this assumption of intrinsic homogeneity is often too restrictive for many real-world applications, where spatial processes exhibit varying degrees of non-homogeneity. Cokriging, on the other hand, extends the capabilities of ordinary kriging by incorporating secondary variables that are cross-correlated with the primary variable of interest. This method is particularly useful when these secondary variables can help explain some of the spatial variability not captured by the primary variable alone, thus relaxing the strict homogeneity requirement. The inclusion of functional secondary variables in cokriging allows for a more nuanced understanding of spatial relationships, enhancing predictions in cases where environmental factors, such as wind speed in pollution studies, play a significant role. The assumption of spatial autocorrelation, which posits that closer observations are more closely related than those further apart, underpins both ordinary kriging and cokriging. However, the handling of non-stationarity and heterogeneity differs between the two. While ordinary kriging may struggle with non-stationary data, cokriging's ability to incorporate multiple sources of information makes it more adaptable to such conditions. Moreover, advancements in computational techniques, such as parallel processing for ordinary kriging, aim to address the computational demands of large datasets, yet they do not fundamentally alter the method's reliance on its core assumptions. In contrast, Gaussian Process (GP) regression, akin to kriging, offers a more flexible approach to modeling spatial data by automating kernel inference and accommodating large datasets more efficiently, thus presenting an alternative to traditional kriging methods when dealing with complex spatial phenomena. In summary, the choice between ordinary kriging and cokriging is deeply influenced by the assumptions of spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity. While ordinary kriging assumes intrinsic homogeneity, making it suitable for more uniform spatial processes, cokriging allows for the inclusion of additional variables to better model complex, non-homogeneous patterns. The decision between these methods should consider the specific characteristics of the spatial data in question, including the presence of non-stationarity and the availability of relevant secondary variables.

More on Spatial Prediction

Assumptions of spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity influence the choice between ordinary kriging and cokriging by allowing for non-stationary data handling and multivariate information incorporation.

Perbandingan pendugaan metode ordinary kriging dan metode ordinary kriging dengan teknik jackknife

Spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity influence the choice between ordinary kriging and cokriging. Ordinary kriging is preferred for normal data, while cokriging may be more suitable for non-normal data.

Accelerating Ordinary Kriging Interpolation Algorithm on GPUs

Spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity influence the choice between ordinary kriging and cokriging by impacting the accuracy and efficiency of interpolation in geosciences.

Traditional kriging versus modern Gaussian processes for large-scale mining data

Spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity influence the choice between ordinary kriging and cokriging in geostatistics, with Gaussian Processes offering automation, scalability, and improved uncertainty quantification over traditional kriging methods.

Accelerating Ordinary Kriging Interpolation Algorithm on GPUs

Spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity influence the choice between ordinary kriging and cokriging in geosciences, impacting the accuracy and efficiency of spatial interpolation methods.

Application of Co-Kriging and Ordinary Kriging for Selecting Additional Well Locations

Spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity influence the selection between ordinary kriging and co-kriging in predicting well performance index values, with co-kriging showing superior performance when clean fluid volume is considered.

Non-Homogeneity Estimation and Universal Kriging on the Sphere

The assumption of homogeneity influences the choice between ordinary kriging and cokriging. When spatial processes are not intrinsically homogeneous, cokriging may be preferred over ordinary kriging.

Cokriging Prediction Using as Secondary Variable a Functional Random Field with Application in Environmental Pollution

Spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity influence the selection between ordinary kriging and cokriging. Cokriging is preferred when a secondary variable is cross-correlated with the primary variable, enhancing prediction accuracy.

Application of Co-Kriging and Ordinary Kriging for Selecting Additional Well Locations

Spatial autocorrelation and homogeneity impact the choice between ordinary kriging and co-kriging in predicting Well Performance Index (WPI) for new drilling locations, with co-kriging showing superior performance.