On the Use of Non-Euclidean Distance Measures in Geostatistics

In many scientific disciplines, straight line, Euclidean distances may not accurately describe proximity relationships among spatial data. However, non-Euclidean distance measures must be used with caution in geostatistical applications. A simple example is provided to demonstrate there are no guarantees that existing covariance and variogram functions remain valid (i.e. positive definite or conditionally negative definite) when used with a non-Euclidean distance measure. There are certain distance measures that when used with existing covariance and variogram functions remain valid, an issue that is explored. The concept of isometric embedding is introduced and linked to the concepts of positive and conditionally negative definiteness to demonstrate classes of valid norm dependent isotropic covariance and variogram functions, results many of which have yet to appear in the mainstream geostatistical literature or application. These classes of functions extend the well known classes by adding a parameter to define the distance norm. In practice, this distance parameter can be set a priori to represent, for example, the Euclidean distance, or kept as a parameter to allow the data to choose the metric. A simulated application of the latter is provided for demonstration. Simulation results are also presented comparing kriged predictions based on Euclidean distance to those based on using a water metric.

[1]  J. Wells,et al.  Embeddings and Extensions in Analysis , 1975 .

[2]  Noel A Cressie,et al.  Statistics for Spatial Data. , 1992 .

[3]  Noel A Cressie,et al.  Spatial prediction from networks , 1990 .

[4]  G. Christakos On the Problem of Permissible Covariance and Variogram Models , 1984 .

[5]  Anders Løland,et al.  Spatial covariance modelling in a complex coastal domain by multidimensional scaling , 2003 .

[6]  Stephen L. Rathbun,et al.  Spatial modelling in irregularly shaped regions: Kriging estuaries , 1998 .

[7]  I. J. Schoenberg On Certain Metric Spaces Arising From Euclidean Spaces by a Change of Metric and Their Imbedding in Hilbert Space , 1937 .

[8]  Carol A. Gotway,et al.  Statistical Methods for Spatial Data Analysis , 2004 .

[9]  J. Hoef,et al.  Spatial statistical models that use flow and stream distance , 2006, Environmental and Ecological Statistics.

[10]  Roger Woodard,et al.  Interpolation of Spatial Data: Some Theory for Kriging , 1999, Technometrics.

[11]  Sudipto Banerjee,et al.  On Geodetic Distance Computations in Spatial Modeling , 2005, Biometrics.

[12]  G. Matheron The intrinsic random functions and their applications , 1973, Advances in Applied Probability.

[13]  Don Edwards,et al.  Kriging in estuaries: as the crow flies, or as the fish swims? , 1997 .

[14]  K. Krivoruchko,et al.  Geostatistical Interpolation and Simulation in the Presence of Barriers , 2004 .

[15]  T. Gneiting Correlation functions for atmospheric data analysis , 1999 .

[16]  F. Dominici,et al.  Combining evidence on air pollution and daily mortality from the 20 largest US cities: a hierarchical modelling strategy , 2000 .

[17]  Donald St. P. Richards Positive definite symmetric functions on finite-dimensional spaces II , 1985 .

[18]  F. Graybill,et al.  Matrices with Applications in Statistics. , 1984 .

[19]  A. Householder,et al.  Discussion of a set of points in terms of their mutual distances , 1938 .

[20]  Noel A Cressie,et al.  Non-point-source pollution of surface waters over a watershed , 1997 .

[21]  Noel A Cressie,et al.  Spatio-Temporal Statistical Modeling of Livestock Waste in Streams , 1996 .

[22]  T. C. Haas,et al.  Model-based geostatistics. Discussion. Authors' reply , 1998 .

[23]  P. Guttorp,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation of Nonstationary Spatial Covariance Structure , 1992 .

[24]  Victor P Zastavnyi,et al.  On Positive Definiteness of Some Functions , 2000 .

[25]  P. Diggle,et al.  Model-based geostatistics (with discussion). , 1998 .