Robustness Problems in the Analysis of Spatial Data

  • Marc G. Genton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Statistics book series (LNS, volume 159)


Kriging is a widely used method of spatial prediction, particularly in earth and environmental sciences. It is based on a function which describes the spatial dependence, the so called variogram. Estimation and fitting of the variogram, as well as variogram model selection, are crucial stages of spatial prediction, because the variogram determines the kriging weights. These three steps must be carried out carefully, otherwise kriging can produce noninformative maps. The classical variogram estimator proposed by Matheron is not robust against outliers in the data, nor is it enough to make simple modifications such as the ones proposed by Cressie and Hawkins in order to achieve robustness. The use of a variogram estimator based on a highly robust estimator of scale is proposed. The robustness properties of these three variogram estimators are analyzed by means of the influence function and the classical breakdown point. The latter is extended to a spatial breakdown point, which depends on the construction of the most unfavorable configurations of perturbation. The effect of linear trend in the data and location outliers on variogram estimation is also discussed. Variogram model selection is addressed via nonparametric estimation of the derivative of the variogram. Variogram estimates at different spatial lags are correlated, because the same observation is used for different lags. The correlation structure of variogram estimators has been analyzed for Gaussian data, and then extended to elliptically contoured distributions. Its use for variogram fitting by generalized least squares is presented. Results show that our techniques improve the estimation and the fit significantly. Two new Splus functions for highly robust variogram estimation and variogram fitting by generalized least squares, as well as a Matlab code for variogram model selection via nonparametric derivative estimation, are available on the Web at].


Spatial Data Weighted Little Square Influence Function Robust Estimator Variogram Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bochner, S. (1955). Harmonic Analysis and the Theory of Probability. Berkeley: University of California Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Cherry, S. (1997). Non-parametric estimation of the sill in geostatistics. Environmetrics 8, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cherry, S., J. Banfield, and W.F. Quimby (1996). An evaluation of a non-parametric method of estimating semi-variogram of isotropic spatial processes. Journal of Applied Statistics 23, 435–449.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cressie, N.A.C. (1985). Fitting variogram models by weighted least squares. Mathematical Geology 17, 563–586.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cressie, N.A.C. (1993). Statistics for Spatial Data (revised ed.). Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics: Applied Probability and Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Cressie, N.A.C. and D. M. Hawkins (1980). Robust estimation of the variogram. I. Mathematical Geology 12, 115–125.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croux, C. and P. J. Rousseeuw (1992). Time-efficient algorithms for two highly robust estimators of scale. In Y. Dodge and J. Whittaker (Eds.), Computational Statistics, Volume 1, pp. 411–428. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Eyer, L. and M.G. Genton (1999). Characterization of variable stars by robust wave variograms: an application to Hipparcos mission. Astronomy and Astrophysics, Supplement Series 136, 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fang, K.T. and T.W. Anderson (Eds.) (1990). Statistical Inference in Elliptically Contoured and Related Distributions. New York: Allerton Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Fang, K.T., S. Kotz, and K.W. Ng (1989). Symmetric Multivariate and Related Distributions, Volume 36 of Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Fang, K.T. and Y.T. Zhang (1990). Generalized Multivariate Analysis. Berlin: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Furrer, R. and M.G. Genton (1999). Robust spatial data analysis of Lake Geneva sediments with S+SpatialStats. Systems Research and Information Systems 8, 257–272. special issue on Spatial Data Analysis and Modeling.Google Scholar
  13. Genton, M.G. (1998a). Highly robust variogram estimation. Mathematical Geology 30, 213–221.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Genton, M.G. (1998b). Variogram fitting by generalized least squares using an explicit formula for the covariance structure. Mathematical Geology 30, 323–345.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Genton, M.G. (1998c). Spatial breakdown point of variogram estimators. Mathematical Geology 30, 853–971.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Genton, M.G. (1999). The correlation structure of Matheron’s classical variogram estimator under elliptically contoured distributions. Mathematical Geology 32, 127–137.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Genton, M.G. and R. Furrer (1998a). Analysis of rainfall data by simple good sense: is spatial statistics worth the trouble? Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 2, 11–17.Google Scholar
  18. Genton, M.G. and R. Furrer (1998b). Analysis of rainfall data by robust spatial statistics using S+SpatialStats. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 2, 126–136.Google Scholar
  19. Gorsich, D.J. and M.G. Genton (1999). Variogram model selection via nonparametric derivative estimations. Mathematical Geology 32, 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hampel, F.R. (1973). Robust estimation, a condensed partial survey. Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete 27, 87–104.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hampel, F.R., E.M. Ronchetti, P.J. Rousseeuw, and W.A. Stahel (1986). Robust Statistics, the Approach Based on Influence Functions. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics: Probability and Mathematical Statistics. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Huber, P.J. (1977). Robust Statistical Procedures, Volume 27 of CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Journel, A.G. and Ch.J. Huijbregts (1978). Mining Geostatistic. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Matheron, G. (1962). Traité de géostatistique appliquée. I, Volume 14 of Mémoires du Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières. Paris: Editions Technip.Google Scholar
  25. Rousseeuw, P.J. and C. Croux (1992). Explicit scale estimators with high breakdown point. In Y. Dodge (Ed.), L 1-Statistical Analyses and Related Methods, pp. 77–92. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  26. Rousseeuw, P.J. and C. Croux (1993). Alternatives to the median absolute deviation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88, 1273–1283.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shapiro, A. and J.D. Botha (1991). Variogram fitting with a general class of conditionally nonnegative definite functions. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 11, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc G. Genton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations