Links, comparisons and extensions of the geographically weighted regression model when used as a spatial predictor

  • Paul HarrisEmail author
  • Chris Brunsdon
  • A. Stewart Fotheringham
Original Paper


In this study, we link and compare the geographically weighted regression (GWR) model with the kriging with an external drift (KED) model of geostatistics. This includes empirical work where models are performance tested with respect to prediction and prediction uncertainty accuracy. In basic forms, GWR and KED (specified with local neighbourhoods) both cater for nonstationary correlations (i.e. the process is heteroskedastic with respect to relationships between the variable of interest and its covariates) and as such, can predict more accurately than models that do not. Furthermore, on specification of an additional heteroskedastic term to the same models (now with respect to a process variance), locally-accurate measures of prediction uncertainty can result. These heteroskedastic extensions of GWR and KED can be preferred to basic constructions, whose measures of prediction uncertainty are only ever likely to be globally-accurate. We evaluate both basic and heteroskedastic GWR and KED models using a case study data set, where data relationships are known to vary across space. Here GWR performs well with respect to the more involved KED model and as such, GWR is considered a viable alternative to the more established model in this particular comparison. Our study adds to a growing body of empirical evidence that GWR can be a worthy predictor; complementing its more usual guise as an exploratory technique for investigating relationships in multivariate spatial data sets.


Heteroskedastic Local uncertainty Relationship nonstationarity 



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. Thanks are also due to the first author’s PhD studentship and S. Juggins at Newcastle University; and to M. Kernan at University College London for providing the case study data.


  1. Bailey TC, Gatrell AC (1995) Interactive spatial data analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bitter C, Mulligan GF, Dall’erba S (2007) Incorporating spatial variation in housing attribute prices: a comparison of geographically weighted regression and the spatial expansion method. J Geogr Syst 9:7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chilès JP, Delfiner P (1999) Geostatistics—modelling spatial uncertainty. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Deutsch CV, Journel AG (1998) GSLIB geostatistical software library and user’s guide. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton ME (2002) Geographically weighted regression—the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. CLAG Freshwaters (1995) Critical loads of acid deposition for United Kingdom Freshwaters. Critical Loads Advisory Group. Sub-report on Freshwaters. ITE, PenicuikGoogle Scholar
  7. Gao X, Asami Y, Chung C (2006) An empirical evaluation of spatial regression models. Comput Geosci 32:1040–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelfand AE, Kim HJ, Sirmans CJ, Banerjee S (2003) Spatial modeling with spatially varying coefficient processes. J Am Stat Assoc 98:387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goovaerts P (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Goovaerts P (2001) Geostatistical modelling of uncertainty in soil science. Geoderma 103:3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris P, Fotheringham AS, Crespo R, Charlton M (2010a) The use of geographically weighted regression for spatial prediction: an evaluation of models using simulated data sets. Math Geosci 42:657–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris P, Charlton M, Fotheringham AS (2010b) Moving window kriging with geographically weighted variograms. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24:1193–1209. doi: 10.1007/s00477-010-0391-2 Google Scholar
  13. Harris P, Fotheringham AS, Juggins S (2010c) Robust geographically weighed regression: a technique for quantifying spatial relationships between freshwater acidification critical loads and catchment attributes. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100(2):286–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heuvelink GBM, Pebesma EJ (2002) Is the ordinary kriging variance a proper measure of interpolation error? In: Hunter G, Lowell K (eds) The fifth international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural resources and environmental sciences. RMIT University, Melbourne, pp 179–186Google Scholar
  15. Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Journel AG (1986) Geostatistics: models and tools for the earth sciences. Math Geol 18:119–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kernan MR, Allott TEH, Battarbee RW (1998) Predicting freshwater critical loads of acidification at the catchment scale: an empirical model. Water Air Soil Pollut 185:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kernan MR, Haliwell RC, Hughes MJ (2001) Predicting freshwater critical loads from catchment characteristics using national datasets. Water Air Soil Pollut Focus 1:415–435Google Scholar
  19. Kupfer JA, Farris CA (2007) Incorporating spatial non-stationarity of regression coefficients into predictive vegetation models. Landsc Ecol 22:837–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laslett GM (1994) Kriging and splines: an empirical comparison of their predictive performance in some applications. J Am Stat Assoc 89:391–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leung Y, Mei C, Zhang W (2000) Statistical tests for spatial nonstationarity based on the geographically weighted regression model. Environ Plann 32:9–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lloyd CD (2010) Nonstationary models for exploring and mapping monthly precipitation in the United Kingdom. Int J Climatol 30:390–405Google Scholar
  23. Loader C (2004) Smoothing: local regression techniques. In: Gentle J, Härdle W, Mori Y (eds) Handbook of computational statistics. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  24. Matheron G (1989) Estimating and choosing: an essay on probability in practice. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Nilsson J, Grennfelt P (eds) (1988) Critical loads for sulphur and nitrogen. Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  26. Páez A, Long F, Farber S (2008) Moving window approaches for hedonic price estimation: an empirical comparison of modelling techniques. Urban Stud 45:1565–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pereira MJ, Soares A, Rosario L (2002) Characterization of forest resources with satellite spot images by using local models of co-regionalization. In: Kleingeld WJ, Krige DG (eds) Geostatistics 2000 Cape Town. Geostatistical Association of Southern AfricaGoogle Scholar
  28. Rivoirard J (1987) Teacher’s Aide—two key parameters when choosing the kriging neighbourhood. Math Geol 19(8):851–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salas C, Ene L, Gregoire TG, Næsset E, Gobakken T (2010) Modelling tree diameter from airborne laser scanning derived variables: a comparison of spatial statistical models. Remote Sens Environ 114:1277–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schabenberger O, Gotway C (2005) Statistical methods for spatial data analysis. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Switzer P (1993) The spatial variability of prediction errors. In Geostatistics Troia 92 (A. Soares, Ed.) pp. 261-272Google Scholar
  32. Van Meirvenne M, Goovaerts P (2001) Evaluating the probability of exceeding a site-specific soil cadmium contamination threshold. Geoderma 102:75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wackernagel H (2003) Multivariate geostatistics: third completely revised edition. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Waller LA, Zhu L, Gotway CA, Gorman DM, Grunewald PJ (2007) Quantifying geographic variations in associations between alcohol distribution and violence: a comparison of geographically weighted regression and spatially varying coefficient models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21:573–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wheeler D (2007) Diagnostic tools and a remedial method for collinearity in geographically weighted regression. Environ Plann 39:2464–2481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wheeler D (2009) Simultaneous coefficient penalization and model selection in geographically weighted regression: the geographically weighted lasso. Environ Plann 41:722–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wheeler D, Waller L (2009) Comparing spatially varying coefficient models: a case study examining violent crime rates and their relationships to alcohol outlets and illegal drug arrests. J Geogr Syst 11:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang L, Gove JH, Heath LS (2005) Spatial residual analysis of six modelling techniques. Ecol Modell 186:154–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Harris
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chris Brunsdon
    • 2
  • A. Stewart Fotheringham
    • 1
  1. 1.National Centre for GeocomputationNational University of IrelandMaynoothIreland
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations