Abstract
This paper sets up the relations between simple cokriging and ordinary cokriging with one or several unbiasedness constraints. Differences between cokriging variants are related to differences between models adopted for the means of primary and secondary variables. Because it is not necessary for the secondary data weights to sum to zero, ordinary cokriging with a single unbiasedness constraint gives a larger weight to the secondary information while reducing the occurrence of negative weights. Also the weights provided by such cokriging systems written in terms of covariances or correlograms are not related linearly, hence the estimates are different. The prediction performances of cokriging estimators are assessed using an environmental dataset that includes concentrations of five heavy metals at 359 locations. Analysis of reestimation scores at 100 test locations shows that kriging and cokriging perform equally when the primary and secondary variables are sampled at the same locations. When the secondary information is available at the estimated location, one gains little by retaining other distant secondary data in the estimation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Almeida, A., and Journel, A. G., 1994, Joint simulation of multiple variables with a Markov-type coregionalization model: Math. Geology, v. 26,no. 5, p. 565–588.
Asli, M., and Marcotte, D., 1995, Comparison of approaches to spatial estimation in a bivariate context: Math. Geology, v. 27,no. 5, p. 641–658.
Atteia, O., Dubois, J.-P., and Webster, R., 1994. Geostatistical analysis of soil contamination in the Swiss Jura: Environmental Pollution, v. 86,no. 1, p. 315–327.
Deutsch, C. V., and Journel, A. G., 1992, GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and user's guide: Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 340 p.
Goovaerts, P., 1994, Comparative performance of indicator algorithms for modeling conditional probability distribution functions: Math. Geology, v. 26,no. 3, p. 389–411.
Goulard, M., and Voltz, M., 1992, Linear coregionalization model: tools for estimation and choice of cross-variogram matrix: Math. Geology, v. 24,no. 3, p. 269–286.
Helterbrand, J. D., and Cressie, N., 1994, Universal cokriging under intrinsic coregionalization: Math. Geology, v. 26,no. 2, p. 205–226.
Hevesi, J. A., Istok, J. D., and Flint, A. L., 1992, Precipitation estimation in mountainous terrain using multivariate geostatistics. Part I: Structural analysis. Jour. Applied Meteorology, v. 31,no. 3, p. 661–676.
Isaaks, E., and Srivastava, R., 1989, An introduction to applied geostatistics: Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 561 p.
Journel, A. G., and Rossi, M. E., 1989, When do we need a trend model in kriging?: Math. Geology, v. 21,no. 7, p. 715–739.
Matheron, G., 1970, La théorie des variables régionalisées et ses applications: Fascicule No. 5, Cahier du Centre de Morphologie Mathématique de Fontainebleau, 212 p.
Matheron, G., 1979, Recherche de simplification dans un problème de cokrigeage: Research Rept. N-628, Centre de Géostatistique, Fontainebleau, 18 p.
Stein, A., van Dooremolen, W., Bouma, J., and Bregt, A. K., 1988, Cokriging point data on moisture deficit: Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jour., v. 52,no. 5, p. 1418–1423.
Wackernagel, H., 1994, Cokriging versus kriging in regionalized multivariate data analysis: Geoderma, v. 62,nos. 1–3, p. 83–92.
Webster, R., Atteia, O., and Dubois, J.-P., 1994, Coregionalization of trace metals in the soil in the Swiss Jura: European Jour. Soil Science, v. 45,no. 1, p. 205–218.
Xu, W., Tran, T., Srivastava, R., and Journel, A. G., 1992, Integrating seismic data in reservoir modeling: the collocated cokriging alternative: SPE Paper No. 24742, unpaginated.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goovaerts, P. Ordinary Cokriging Revisited. Mathematical Geology 30, 21–42 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021757104135
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021757104135