Annals of GIS

ISSN: 1947-5683 (Print) 1947-5691 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tagi20

Spatial statistics in geographical information

science: from interpolation to probabilistic
robotics

Alfred Stein

To cite this article: Alfred Stein (2010) Spatial statistics in geographical information
science: from interpolation to probabilistic robotics, Annals of GIS, 16:4, 211-221, DOI:
10.1080/19475683.2010.539986

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2010.539986

Published online: 16 Dec 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 381

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tagi20
Annals of GIS
Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2010, 211–221

REVIEW ARTICLE
Spatial statistics in geographical information science: from interpolation to probabilistic robotics
Alfred Stein*
Department of Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Twente University, Enschede, The Netherlands
(Received 2 September 2010; final version received 10 November 2010)

This review article presents an overview of spatial statistical procedures that are of use and value in geographical information
science. Spatial statistics considers the handling of spatial data, with an emphasis on modeling and on dealing with uncertainty.
Spatial statistics includes issues of interpolation, point statistics, and sampling. Within a robotics context we distinguish
localization, mapping, and decision control and support. Localization is based on advanced image analysis in which the idea of
image mining plays an important role. Image mining considers the chain from object identification on natural or man-made
processes from remote sensing images through modeling, tracking on a series of images and prediction, toward communication
to stakeholders. Geographical information science serves as a scientific field, for example, to generate a platform for storing
observed and collected data, analyzing them, and displaying the results. This article shows how within the domain of robotics
there are novel and intriguing possibilities to use spatial statistics and image mining. The article gives a concise overview of
these procedures and several ways ahead that are of value within a robotics context. It is illustrated with a field study on robotics
in agriculture.
Keywords: spatial statistics; image mining; interpolation; robotics; spatial data quality

1. Introduction dedicated simulation studies. Finally, with increasing com-

Geographical information science (GIS) has traditionally
maintained close links with spatial statistics (Goodchild
1999, Burrough 2001). Goodchild (1999), when addressing
uncertainty in geographic analysis and GIS-based analysis,
identifies the need to make spatial statistical methods more
available to the general users. There are many reasons for
the close and necessary link. Traditionally, information has
been present in the form of point data, whereas an informa-
tion layer in an geographic information system requires a
full coverage of the area to be able to interpret or to overlay
with other layers. Creating those layers thus requires the
interpolation of points to areas.
Spatial statistics is fundamental during a quantitative
spatial analysis. When analyzing spatial data, for example,
to build relations between soil and crop data, ordinary
regression has been used throughout. As ordinary regres-
sion ignores the presence of spatial dependence, more
advanced spatial regression methods have been developed.
Similarly, image analysis methods currently offer advanced
methods of carrying out a (semi)automatic object identifica-
tion and classification, whereas fuzzy classifiers allow a
user to include some issues of uncertainty as well. From a
more advanced point of view, we notice an increasing
attention for point pattern and stochastic geometry analysis.
At the user interface, one increasingly needs uncertainty
information in decision making, for example, leading to
puting facilities it has become more obvious than ever that
spatial objects could be uncertain and vague, and showing
internal spatial variation. Spatial statistics may be able to
quantify this uncertainty and assist in analyzing conse-
quences of uncertainty during spatial data processing. All
these topics require a skillful use of spatial statistics as was
identified explicitly as early as in 1986 (Burrough 1986).
Spatial statistics, as a science on its own, may be traced
back to the early 1900s, when Mercer and Hall (1911) had
offered the landmark starting study. It has developed rapidly
in the past 50 years. A main development was the need to
interpolate data by making predictions at unsampled loca-
tions, in particular when analyzing agricultural, geological,
hydrological, and soils data. Related issues on spatial mod-
eling, sampling, and simulation have been addressed. These
procedures are well documented and generally applicable
(Gelfand et al. 2010). A specific focus on remote sensing
images started with the work of Curran (1988) in the 1980s
and 1990s (Stein et al. 1999). Somehow, the set of problems
initially appeared to be limited; as remote sensing images
already display much information, pixels have a nonpoint
support size and the interpolation below clouds was only
realistic for relatively small clouds (Curran and Atkinson
1998, Addink and Stein 1999). To extract information quan-
titatively, a disciplinary approach was preferred, and more
classical statistical procedures such as nearest neighbor

*Email: stein@itc.nl

ISSN 1947-5683 print/ISSN 1947-5691 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/19475683.2010.539986
http://www.informaworld.com
212
clustering and principal component analysis were useful
and fruitful to address the major questions that a user
would put to images, for example, segmentation and classi-
fication. Moreover, uncertainty generating disturbances to
images have been addressed by developing models to han-
dle atmospheric conditions.
This century has seen a further increase in the develop-
ment, the applications, and the use of spatial statistical
procedures within geographical information science. We
notice the advance of lattice type approaches in advanced
classification, in super pixel resolution mapping, and in
drawing inferences from images. The geostatistical
approach increasingly focuses on prediction of missing
pixels and simulation of values for use in GIS-based mod-
els. A point pattern analysis is more recently coming of age
when realizing that many features derived from remote
sensing images essentially have a point shape. Finally,
statistical methods for spatial sampling have found their
place when ground control points can be freely located.
The analysis is largely determined by the availability of
reliable data and of the availability of solid software
packages. Modern ArcGIS facilities now incorporate
much of the spatial statistical procedures. More recently,
image mining has been introduced as an integrated proce-
dure to extract relevant information from large sets of
images. It thus extends the general GIS notion of data
collection and analysis.
A modern development that we will consider at some
level of detail in this article concerns machine learning and
robotics. Robotics concerns the optimal programming of,
for example, a field robot that maneuvers in a well-defined
area (Thrun et al. 2005). Such maneuvering requires collec-
tion and analysis of spatial information on an isolated plat-
form. Such information may be available when the robot
starts operating, whereas updating of spatial information
may be convenient during its processing. A robot therefore
may have onboard a GIS-type information center, contain-
ing images and maps of the area of operation and may
benefit from image-taking and analyzing capacities during
its operation. In particular, issues of machine learning are
important for this purpose (Bishop 2006).
The aim of this article is to show how existing methods
within GIS, and with some emphasis on spatial statistics, are
suited at this moment to enter a new stage in GIS, namely
their implementation within a robot environment. The arti-
cle is organized as follows. It starts with a short description
of image mining, next it describes spatial statistical proce-
dures and image analysis, and in the end it addresses the
combination of the two lines within a robotic environment.
2. Image mining
We start the overview by considering image mining. Image
mining is defined as ‘the analysis of (often large sets of)
observational images to find (un)suspected relationships and
A. Stein
to summarize the data in novel ways that are both under-
standable and useful to stakeholders’ (Stein 2008). Objects
discernable on those images can be either crisp or fuzzy and
vague. We distinguish five important steps in image mining:
identification, modeling, tracking, prediction, and communi-
cation with stakeholders (Figure 1). All these processes will
be briefly discussed below. On top of this, we notice aspects
of quality control in each of these steps.
Identification of objects corresponds to combining an
observed pattern in an image with a set of signals. This
would mean that in an area a homogenous set of pixel values
occurs, pointing to an object of interest. The next step
concerns the extraction of the object. This is usually done
by means of a segmentation, followed by a classification.
Extraction of objects makes the step from raster to objects.
Typically, extraction is done by applying a segmentation
routine in which both the object and the uncertainty are
modeled. Various procedures for image segmentation are
well documented, and include procedures based on mathe-
matical morphology, edge detection and identifying homo-
geneity in one band or in a set of bands (Glasbey and
Horgan 1995). Modeling of uncertainty has been done in
the past by using, for example, a confusion index, whereas
traditionally a discriminant analysis could be applied, hon-
oring the presence of different spectral bands and yielding
posterior probabilities to the non-selected classes. The result
of this operation for an image is a series of n objects
Ωi;t ; i ¼ 1; : : : ; nt , that are characterized by similar pixel
values, which are different from pixel values in the vicinity.
A segmentation and classification step in image mining
delineates objects and assigns a label to it from a class of
possible labels. Segmentation and classification lead tradi-
tionally to crisp objects. At each moment t, the centroid μ(t)
may be given as a pair of coordinates, and the boundary b(t)
as a set of points or as a parametric curve. We increasingly
realize, however, that many real-world objects are not crisp
by nature, but that they are fuzzy or vague, either because of
their definition, their transition zones to neighbors or inher-
ent variability. They thus have an uncertain boundary and/or
an uncertain extent. Modeling of identified objects as
Object
identification
Modeling
External factors
Images
Prediction
Tracking
in time
t0
t1,...,tn
Quality control Stakeholders
Figure 1. Image mining of uncertain objects.
 Annals of GIS
uncertain objects Ω̃i;t requires either specification of inten-
sity values, or as parameters of a membership function vi to
a class Ωi of interest (Dilo et al. 2006).
The next stage is to model their behavior in space and
time (Dubois and Jaulent 1987). As long as the object is
characterized by a limited set of parameters, such tracking
may be relatively straightforward. For a crisp object the
centroid μ(t) may be given at each moment t as two coordi-
nates, and the boundary b(t) as a set of points or as a
parametric curve. These could be followed in an interval T
as a function of t 2 T. Object tracking becomes more
complicated for uncertain objects splitting and merging of
objects require some special attention. The splitting of
object Ωt,1 at moment t leads to two new objects Ωtþ1;1
and Ωtþ1;2 at moment t + 1. Both objects require member-
ship functions, defined on the basis of the membership
function at t as well as the characteristics of the new objects.
Inversely, merging of two objects at moment t toward one
single object at moment t + 1 requires first that the member-
ship functions are being combined into one new member-
ship function, and also that the two existing centroids result
into one new centroid.
After tracking successfully, the next stage of image
mining is to predict the object at the moment t0. For a single
object, one way to proceed is to define a parametric curve as
a function of time for μðtÞ; t 2 T and parameters identify-
ing b(t). Similarly, for fuzzy objects a parametric curve may
specify the parameters describing the membership function
νðtÞ; t 2 T . These curves should then be used to predict the
most likely parameters at t0 beyond the moments of obser-
vation so far. Rajasekar et al. (2006) showed the use of a
linear statistical model, whereas particle filtering methods
are of a possible use here as well. In prediction, one may
consider a future event, that is, a real prediction, or one
moment prior to image availability, like predicting the
moment that the object is born. Also, prediction is some-
times required of the object between two moments t and
(a)
100
80
60
40
40 60 80 100
Figure 2. Scatter plots between pixels and their right neighbor (a) and their lower neighbor (b). Correlations are 0.911 and 0.883,
respectively.
213
t + 1. Prediction results in the values of the membership
function, of the centroid, and of the associated uncertainties.
Predicted values are typically of interest to stakeholders,
who may thus have a tool to support their decision making.
Communication to stakeholders can be manifold. It may
range from simple visualization tools toward assessments of
costs and benefits. Issues from decision support typically
are required here. Recent developments have focused on the
use of Bayesian methods in particular in a fuzzy set context.
Stein and Van de Vlag (2006) built a fuzzy decision tree by
considering a range of objects, which when combined pro-
duced the objects of interest. In their case it was beach
objects, whereas in the flooding study described above
this would be flooded objects. Decision making applied in
this way provided essential information in a spatial context,
whereas we found the combination with a probabilistic
approach with fuzzy methods to be interesting as a relation
between real-world objects and remote sensing images
leads to improved object delineation that could be commu-
nicated to stakeholders, including the uncertainties.
3. Spatial statistics
In the overview below we shall make a distinction between
different ways of analyzing remote sensing images. We will
use the following notation throughout: the image is denoted
by I(.), a pixel location in the image is denoted by s 2 I, and
a pixel value at location s is denoted by p(s). The general
approach will be that pixel value show a spatial relation. We
explored this on a spot image from the Enschede area. These
relations can be shown by comparing pixel values with
neighbors, and calculating correlations. Of some particular
may be that these relations need not be isotropic: relations
with left and right neighbors may be different from relations
with their upper and lower neighbors (Figure 2b).
Correlations are 0.911 and 0.883, respectively.
(b)
100
80
60
40
40 60 80 100
214
3.1. Interpolation
Interpolation has been addressed in remote sensing image
mining. A common interpolation procedure requires the use
of geostatistics, that is, that part of spatial statistics that deals
with continuous data in space, collected at arbitrary points
(Cressie 1991; Gelfand et al. 2010). At each pixel location
the observation is considered as a realization of a random
variable. We may use a basic notation as P(s) with s 2 I,
where we now use the capital P to indicate that the pixel
value is a random variable. Pixels show spatial dependence,
as neighboring pixels are more similar than pixels at a larger
distance. The spatial dependence is usually modeled by the
covariance function, defined as the covariance between
pixel values given by the distance h, and denoted by C(h).
Geostatistics is of use in a GIS and remote sensing image
analysis context for various reasons. First, it is a tool to model
the spatial variation of point data collected in a GIS by means
of variograms and covariance functions (Curran 1988).
Second, it may be used to interpolate missing or suspicious
values (Curran and Atkinson1998; Addink and Stein 1999).
Typical examples are pixel values below clouds, anomalies
on an image generated by sensor characteristics, or where an
isolated object (e.g., a tree) is disturbing a general pattern of
an image. Third, it could be applied to downscale the image to
a finer resolution (Atkinson et al. 2008). Finally, geostatistics
provides a tool for spatial simulation, which is important
when simulating and visualizing spatial model calculations.
Geostatistics has plaid a specific role in image fusion. In
image fusion several images have to be overlaid, and these
images may be shifted or rotated (or both) with respect to
each other, or they may have slightly different resolutions.
In particular when an image at a course resolution has to be
overlaid with an image of a low resolution, spatial interpo-
lation is playing a major role. The principle is relatively
straightforward: the coarse resolution pixel values are inter-
polated toward the grid nodes of the low resolution image.
Also, multitemporal image analysis may benefit from geos-
tatistics using its facilities either to tune the images to each
other or to predict values at intermediate times where no
images were available but where somehow interest in a
physical process exists.
As an example, we have interpolated the pixel values at
points that were apparently covered by a cloud on a spot
image (see Figure 3). Figure 3a shows the cloud, whereas
Figures 3b–d show interpolation using the mean, using an
inverse distance interpolator, and using ordinary kriging,
respectively. Apparently, use of the mean gives too crude an
approximation, whereas both inverse distance interpolation
and kriging show more variation. Inverse distance interpo-
lation has as a disadvantage that it usually shows isolated
island type features around incidentally high pixel values,
whereas kriging has the major advantage that its choice of
weights is largely determined by the properties of the spe-
cific band.
A. Stein
Geostatistics has recently become of an increased inter-
est in the link between deterministic model output and
images for remote sensing images. In fact, images may
display information reflecting patterns that are represented
by specific bands or their combinations. Such models range
from statistical models toward complicated deterministic
models. (Van de Kassteele et al. 2006) applied geostatistics
to interpolate concentrations of ground-based particulate
matter (PM10) measurements over Western Europe. The
study uses uncertain secondary information of aerosol opti-
cal thickness from MODIS satellite observations and from a
chemical transport model. An inherent limitation exists to
the spatial representativeness of ground-based measure-
ments. Validation showed that adding secondary informa-
tion from either the chemical transport model or the satellite
observations improved the PM10 mapping. The RMSE
decreased with 17% and 11%, respectively, whereas a com-
bination of both sources of secondary information resulted
in a reduction in the RMSE value with 30%.
3.2. Image analysis
Image analysis can be largely based on the seminal work of
Geman and Geman (1984) and Besag (1986) in the 1980s.
Those publications assume the existence of a multispectral
image x, that consists of the same spectral bands as I, and is
acquired at the same spatial resolution as a classified
image c. Image x is not observed directly, whereas image I
is observed at a coarser resolution and is assumed to be a
degraded observation of the scene. Furthermore, it is
assumed that each pixel in x can be assigned to a unique
class: cðxj Þ ¼ α, where α 2 f1; 2; : : : ; Lg. The relation-
ship between x and I is established by means of a degrada-
tion model. The degradation model for I at pixel p(s) given
image x is then given by
1X
2
S
IðpðsÞÞ ¼ xðajjpðsÞ Þ (1)
2
S j¼1
where S equals the ratio of the resolutions in x and I
(Tolpekin and Stein 2009). For simplicity we exclude partial
overlapping between coarse and fine resolution pixels. For
each pixel xjjpðsÞ , we define a symmetric neighborhood
N ðxjjpðsÞ Þ on x as the set of all pixels inside a square window
with the center on the pixel xjjpðsÞ , except for the pixel itself.
The neighborhood N ðxjjpðsÞ Þ is defined completely when the
window size S is specified. Such a neighborhood system is
symmetric in the image except at the edges. Popular choices
are the first-order neighborhood, that consists of the four
closest connected pixels, and the second-order neighbor-
hood, that consists of the eight closest connected pixels.
Note that the second-order neighborhood corresponds to
our neighborhood system with S ¼ 3. Markov random
 Annals of GIS 215

(a) (b)

1.0

1.0
0.8

0.8
0.6

0.6
0.4

0.4
0.2

0.2
0.0

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(c) (d)
1.0

1.0
0.8

0.8
0.6

0.6
0.4

0.4
0.2

0.2
0.0

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Figure 3. Spatial interpolation below a (simulated) cloud (a). (b) shows interpolation by the mean of the data, (c) by inverse distance, and (d)
by ordinary kriging.

field image analysis models the classified image c as a
Markov random field with neighborhood system N ðxjjpðsÞ Þ.
Because of the equivalence of Markov random fields and
Gibbs random fields, the posterior probability for each
configuration c given observed image y can be specified
by means of a posterior energy function (Geman and Geman
1984).
emerge because of stochastic influences. Statistical infer-
ence for X is based on distances, either those between a
fixed reference point pðs0 Þ 2 I and the points of the process
Xi, or between the points of Xi themselves.
Thus, for an arbitrary pixel pðsÞ 2 I, let ds denote the
distance from p(s) to the nearest point of X. Then the empty
space function of X for r > 0 equals

FðrÞ ¼ PrðdðpðsÞ; X Þ  rÞ (2)

3.3. Point patterns analysis
A statistical point pattern analysis is becoming of an
increasing importance in image analysis. It is commonly
assumed that a spatial process X generates a point-like
pattern. Typical examples in remote sensing images include
landslides within a mountainous area, lakes in a lake abun-
dant area, and freestanding houses on a high-resolution
image. To describe a spatial point pattern, we consider X
as a stationary point process on I. We take stationary pro-
cesses as the starting point whereas for non-homogeneous
populations we refer to Gelfand et al. (2010). Stationarity
means that the position of the points is independent from a
shift in the image, although differences in densities may
The empty space function equals the probability of obser-
ving at least one point closer than r to the arbitrary point
marked as p(s) in the area. Under the assumption of statio-
narity, F(r) does not depend upon p(s). The heuristic expla-
nation of 1 – F (r) is the probability that a circle with radius
r placed at random in the area does not contain a point of X,
as p(s) can be chosen arbitrarily. A completely spatially
random (CSR) pattern of points with density λ shows an
F-function equal to Fref ðrÞ ¼ 1  expðπλr2 Þ. A distribu-
tion of clustered points has an F - function below Fref (r), as
on the average for short distances fewer points are encoun-
tered than for a random pattern, whereas a regular pattern
216
has an F - function above it, as on the average more arbitrary
points encounter a point of the process X. Turning to inter-
point distances, the nearest neighbor distance function G(r)
is the distribution function of the distance from a point of the
process X to its nearest neighbor,
GðrÞ ¼ PrðdðXi ; Xj Þ  rÞ (3)
for r > 0. It is the conditional probability distribution that
the distance from the point Xi to the closest point Xj of the
process is less than or equal to r. A heuristic description of 1
– G(r) is the probability that within a circle with radius r
centered on a randomly selected point no further point
occurs. Again, G(r) does not depend on the choice of Xi
because of stationarity. The empirical distribution function
(EDF) for G(r) is obtained for each distance r by counting
the number of points at distances less than or equal to r. A
random point pattern with density λ shows a G(r)-function
equal to Gref ðrÞ ¼ 1  expðπλr2 Þ. A distribution of clus-
tered points has a G(r)-function higher than this function, as
on short distances more points are encountered than for a
random pattern, whereas a regular pattern has a G
(r)-function below it. To combine the two, the J (r) function
has been developed Van Lieshout and Baddeley (1999). For
inter-point distances to distances with respect to a reference
point, say p(s0), the J (r)-function is defined
1  GðrÞ
J ðrÞ ¼ (4)
1  FðrÞ
for all r > 0 satisfying F (r) < 1. For point processes without
any aggregation or regularity, J (r) ¼ 1, whereas J (r) > 1
indicates inhibition between the points, and aggregated
patterns have a J (r)-function values smaller than one.
Moreover, the J (r) function is constant beyond the effective
range of interaction (Van Lieshout and Baddeley 1999).
3.4. Sampling
The next component of spatial statistics that may find a
place within a robotics context concerns spatial sampling.
Spatial sampling is crucial when collecting reliable, that is,
statistically sound, information. It basically answers the
question where the optimal locations for information collec-
tion should be placed. Such could be important, for exam-
ple, for collecting validation points in remote sensing
studies or to collect optimal information to calibrate deter-
ministic models. Below we will sketch two different
approaches toward spatial sampling: design-based sampling
and model-based sampling. One major difference is that
design-based sampling provides different schemes at each
instance and thus provides statistically sound information,
whereas model-based sampling provides the uniquely best
sampling scheme for a particular purpose.
A. Stein
The basic idea of design-based sampling is that each point
in an area A has the same probability of being sampled.
Sampling points are assigned to locations within A. We dis-
tinguish here three examples: complete random sampling
(Figure 4a), cluster sampling (Figure 4b), and aggregate
sampling (Figure 4c). We suppose that the edge of A is
available as a polygon and that the number n of sampling
points is decided beforehand. Then a random sampling
scheme is generated by applying a random number generator
to generate x- and y-coordinates until n points are generated
that all fall within A. Cluster sampling is generated by first
distributing at random a low number of points, say n0 within
A, in Figure 4b indicated by open symbols. This is followed
by generating within A n/n0 points around each of the pre-
vious, all at a close distance. Notice that the first set of points
is not actually sampled. A grid sampling can be implemented
by overlaying a regular grid over A such that n points fall
within A, and then moving the entire grid over a random
vector such that all points are still located within A.
On top of each of the random generation mechanisms an
area may be stratified on the basis of available information into k
strata Aj ; j ¼ 1; : : : ; k. Available boundaries are determined
and n1 points are assigned to A1, n2 points to A2, and so on. The
distribution could follow any leading principle, such as propor-
tionality to the size of the stratum (Figure 4d), defining a mini-
mum number of points to each stratum, followed by random
allocation of the remaining points, equality of points in each
stratum (Figure 4e), and so on. Such segments typically would
follow from a classification of a remote sensing image, for
example, the land cover. Other examples could include, depend-
ing upon the interest of the study, a soil map, a land-use map, or a
geological map. Often a pragmatic solution is necessary to deal
with irregular boundaries.
Model-based sampling is based on the assumption of a
random model for the data. This assumption is similar to that
made for geostatistical interpolation (Van Groenigen and Stein
1998). Central in model-based sampling is a quantitative opti-
mization criterion: for an infinite area, without any boundaries,
a triangular scheme is well-known to be optimal. Moreover,
each criterion leads to a unique optimal scheme. Examples of
such criteria are: equal coverage of the study area, making a
map with the lowest average kriging variance, and estimating
the variogram with an equal number of pairs of points in each
distance class. In practical studies, however, already collected
data and irregular boundaries should be taken into account. As
an example we may consider the first criterion. The aim will be
to identify the scheme S consisting of the points {xj}. To
evaluate any scheme ne points x̃i ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; ne , are assigned
to the area A. Then the aim is to minimize the sum of the
smallest distances of any of the ne evaluation points to a point
in S. This can be formulated mathematically as
1X ne
fðSÞ ¼ min dðx̃i ; xj Þ (5)
xj 2S ne i¼1
 Annals of GIS 217

(a) (b)
1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

(c) (d)

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.
06

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

(e)
1

0.8

06
0.

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 4. Different spatial sampling schemes: (a) completely random sampling, (b) cluster sampling, (c) grid sampling, (d) stratified random
sampling with number of points proportional to the size of the strata, and (e) stratified sampling with equal number of points in each stratum.

During implementation one could start with a random
scheme S(0) and then follow a simulated annealing schedule,
that is, a point is selected at random and moved over a
random vector such that it finds a new location within A.
The new position is accepted with probability 1 if the new
scheme S(1) that thus emerges has a lower f value than the
original scheme. Moreover, S(1) is also accepted with a
S ð0Þ S ð0Þ
probability e c if S(1) is larger than S(0). A new scheme
S(2) can be generated out of S(1) and this procedure continues
until convergence is reached. The parameter c reduces in
218 A. Stein

value during this optimization process. An illustration of the robot’s existing position. A Gaussian assumption is
optimization is given in Figure 5. The process of optimiza- commonly made here. Grid and Monte Carlo localization
tion is shown for n ¼ 100 points within a rectangular area A are different in the sense that they are based on grid locali-
in Figure 5a–c after 100, 500, and 1000 steps. Clearly, zation and that the resolution plays an essential role. Monte
optimization is not fully reached after 500 steps, although Carlo localization is a Monte Carlo method to determine the
the fitness function f(S) only marginally reduces in size position of a robot given a map of its environment. It is
(Figure 5d). We may notice that the fitness function shows essentially an implementation of the particle filter applied to
increase during early iterations, mainly due to accepting robot localization. The second major component in robotics
inferior schemes. This does not occur at higher iterations, concerns mapping of the environment. The mapping com-
because of the reduction in the parameter s. Figure 5e shows ponent in robotics distinguishes occupancy grid mapping,
that a procedure can easily be adapted to also include exist- and in particular acquiring maps. To combine localization
ing observation points. and mapping, combined ‘Simultaneous Localization and
Mapping’ (SLAM) algorithms have been developed.
Many of the SLAM algorithms show a strong similarity
4. Probabilistic robotics with the kriging equations that are being used in geostatis-
Robotics has evolved as a field of scientific interest (Thrun tics. Planning and control issues are based on Markov
et al. 2005). In robotics, an image has to be taken and decision processes with various extensions.
interpreted rapidly, and based on the image a decision has In agricultural field studies, robotics has developed as a
to be made. Probabilistic robotics concerns a subfield of focal activity during recent years (Brooks 1985, Polder
robotics, dealing with perception and control (Thrun et al. 2007). For a field robot, spatial statistics plays a critical
2005). Three major components are distinguished: localiza- role in the following components. In the first place a robot
tion, mapping, and planning and control. Basically, the has to orient itself between the plants, ploughing rows, and
robot has to position itself within the field, it has to map other visible components. With the current development of
its environment, and it has to make either a plan for a next GPS, this is a rather standard activity. Second, it has to move
stage or to control (or explore) its environment. Localization at the right speed into the right direction. Because of field
procedures include Markov, Gaussian, grid, and Monte irregularities, an almost continuous feedback and correction
Carlo localization. Markov localization includes the is required. Third, based on acquired information a specific
extended Kalman filter as a special case. The differences action has to be taken. In field conditions, this could be the
between them can be characterized as follows. Markov application of specific amounts of manure, of a limited
localization determines a prediction step on the basis of amount of pesticides, or of digging out weeds. Finally,

(a) (d)
6.00 3
4.00

2.00
2
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00

(b) 1

6.00
0
4.00 0 100 500 1000
2.00

0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00

(c) (e)
7
6.00 6
5
4.00 4
3
2.00 2
1
0.00 0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 5. Optimizing a spatial scheme consisting of n ¼ 10 points in a rectangular area A: (a) after 100 iteration steps, (b) after 500 iteration
steps, (c) after 1000 iteration steps. The function f(S) during optimization is given in (d). In (e) three points have been kept fixed and seven
points have been optimized.
 Annals of GIS
rapid and reliable spatial interpolation has to be done if the
field of vision is incidentally obscured, for example, by the
presence of a bird.
GIS issues come up as usually, several layers of infor-
mation are available. There will be a DEM of the field, the
edges and positions of the corners will be present and can be
used for localization, and there will be information on the
position of plants and ridges, in particular, if it concerns
plants in rows such as corn or potatoes. Based on this
information the robot has to maneuver and most likely to
cover the locations in the field within a relatively small
period of time.
An integrated approach can take care of this, for example,
as a layered structure of maps within the robot. After posi-
tioning itself, the robot may be starting to move in a pre-
defined direction. On the basis of images and on the basis of
collected information, it adapts its direction and speed. This
requires a skillful and dedicated image analysis where the
most advanced techniques should be implemented such that
real-time information and corrections can be done. The posi-
tion of the robot itself requires a careful handling of posi-
tional accuracy. When deciding upon an action that is to be
taken, the attribute accuracy of an observed object in the field
(like the presence of a weed species) should be done to avoid
spoiling the environment with overuse of pesticides or to
miss crop affecting weeds. Advanced sampling may be ben-
eficial, in particular, when weeds take preferential positions
(Heijting et al. 2007).
From a GIS perspective, this leads to a multilayer, multi-
scale use of spatial information. At the smallest scale (cor-
responding with the largest area), we have the field with
existing map and farmer’s information. A soil map may be
present and topographical maps may show the presence of
tramlines and drainage pipes. As the more detailed scale, the
current position of the robot is investigated and corrected
using local information. Clearly, an integration of these two
levels of information is required to help the robot function in
an optimal way.
5. The way ahead
5.1. Machine learning
Machine learning is a field that has been developed rapidly
in the recent years (Bishop 2006). It is the study of computer
algorithms that improve automatically through experience.
It has its roots in artificial intelligence. In spatial studies, it
has been linked with pattern recognition (Ripley 1996),
pattern classification (Duda et al. 2000), and with spatial
sampling (Van Groenigen and Stein 1998). Machine learn-
ing refers to a system capable of the autonomous acquisition
and integration of knowledge. This capacity to learn from
experience, analytical observation, and other means, results
in a system that can improve its own speed or performance,
that is, its efficiency and/or effectiveness. Machine learning
219
provides a large set of statistical and mathematical methods
to automatically analyze sets of data. Typical examples
include the graph-cut algorithm (Karimov 2010), Bayesian
networks (Mustafa et al. 2010), boosting (Xiao 2008), sup-
port vector machines (Cristianini and Shawe-Taylor 2000),
artificial neural networks (Skidmore et al. 1997), and random
forests (Breiman 2001). Currently, we notice an increasing
interest in machine learning applications.
Aspects of machine learning seem to be fundamental in
robotics. We expect a robot to learn during operation. The
information grasped should be stored and used subse-
quently. In the localization stage feature extraction based
on segmentation and classification or on object-based clas-
sification could take place, and issues like boosting and
support vector machines could be considered and included.
In the mapping stage, Bayesian interpolation procedures
would be beneficial. But in particular when considering an
integrated SLAM procedure machine learning aspects seem
to be a good way ahead. However, it all depends on the
quality of the data.
5.2. Spatial data quality
Spatial data quality refers to various aspects of data quality
as can be identified for in geographical objects, where
quality is defined as ‘the totality of characteristics of a
product that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied
needs’ (ISO 2002). Spatial data quality is thus close to
fitness for use, that is, ‘the ability to satisfy stated and
implied needs’. So far, issues of spatial data quality that
are prominent in modern GIS have barely been addressed
within the field of robotics. The aspects of usage like costs
and accuracy (Aronoff 1991, Devillers et al. 2005) are
important for assessing the fitness for use of any data and
of any classification (Stein et al. 2008). From the domain of
spatial data quality we can easily imagine that the following
topics are important.
Positional accuracy is the accuracy of address and coor-
dinate values. A distinction can be made into absolute
positional accuracy, that is, the accuracy relative to a given
coordinate reference system, and relative positional accu-
racy, that is, the accuracy relative to other data in a test data
set. Relative positional accuracy is sufficient to calculate the
variance in area and variance in perimeter or diameter by
means of error propagation analysis (Chrisman 1991). More
generally, relative positional accuracy is sufficient in an
error propagation analysis on a single spatial data set. If
data sets are to be combined and an error propagation
analysis is needed, however, then absolute positional accu-
racy needs to be known. In robotics with the various loca-
lization approaches, and within a field contents of the
importance of doing the right thing at the right place, posi-
tional accuracy is important. Both the orientation in the
field, that is, the precision of the GPS, and the direction to
go for a robot have to be addressed.
220
Attribute accuracy is the accuracy of all attributes other
than the positional attributes of a spatial data set. Attributes
can be measured either at the numeric or at the nominal
measurement scale. Nominal attributes are unordered, like
for example geological or soil units. The accuracy of nom-
inal attributes can be described by means of the fraction that
observations correspond to the hypothesized truth.
Combined for different nominal units this leads to an error
matrix (Congalton and Green 1999). The accuracy of
numerical attributes can be described with the root mean
square error (RMSE) and similar other measures. In Van de
Vlag and Stein (2006), an attempt was made for at least one
type of objects (land use forms) to model and quantify
uncertain boundaries. We notice in passing that attribute
and positional accuracy are difficult to separate in observa-
tional studies. In a robotic context, the attribute accuracy
comes back when a robot is observing its environment.
Such forms of image analysis are subtle and can have a
large effect. Research at present is going on in this area,
becoming rather specific for various applications.
6. Vision for the future
We notice at present several developments with conse-
quences for the development of spatial (and temporal) sta-
tistics in the nearby future. A solid integration of layers of
information as available and that are collected on the go by a
field robot is important. Such an integration is not trivial.
Various levels of scale have to be combined, and various
issues of data quality are to be matched. Even the use of a
relatively simple yield map may already be a complicated
activity.
Mapping is an important element in probabilistic
robotics: on the one hand, chapters 9 and 10 in Thrun
et al. (2005) are entirely devoted to precisely this. Spatial
statistics on the other hand has a long history in kriging and
other spatial interpolation routines. A further integration of
the geostatistical routines within a robotics environment
should be beneficial to make the maps as precisely as
possible, using all the available knowledge in the best
possible way.
As discussed in Section 5, aspects of spatial data quality
will have a large effect on the quality of a robot under field
conditions. At this stage, it is difficult to (a) collect and
quantify data quality when a device is on the field, and (b) to
use this to the advantage. So far, data analysis concentrates
on doing the right thing. But it is not difficult to imagine that
dealing with some uncertain aspects may be beneficial. If,
for example, it is well known that a particular weed species
is more abundant under rather wet field conditions, then
such uncertain information be used by defining a preferen-
tial trajectory for the robot to proceed. It may then start at a
low part in the field, albeit this being only vaguely defined,
and use such knowledge to detect weed occurrences to
delete.
A. Stein
There is much to be gained in the domain of advanced
image analysis. Current research aims at developing and
implementing high level image analysis routines. In parti-
cular, super-resolution mapping and texture-based segmen-
tation and classification routines are shown to become
valuable in the robotics context.
Spatial sampling is another issue that could easily find a
place within robotics. It is and remains important to collect
information from various places. Within an agricultural
field setting, we may imagine different scales of variation,
for example, determined by soil conditions, previous man-
agement, and natural development. Such information
should be usable within a robot. In particular, I see a good
possibility to carry out a model-based sampling procedure
when general information on a specific variable has to be
collected, whereas a design-based sampling procedure
should be applicable when more general information is to
be collected. Adaptive or sequential sampling procedures
are clearly advantageous when the spatial distribution of a
variable (like the presence of a weed) is much more
uncertain.
The examples that I draw on in the above are all more or
less related to agricultural field conditions. Also outside this
domain, however, there are good opportunities to integrate
spatial statistics with robotics. A similar example could be
drawn for application of robotics within a mining environ-
ment, within a water environment, or within other environ-
mental or ecological applications.
In summary, one may be surprised that still so few
interactions exist between these two scientific domains.
Some is hidden behind equations as argued above, where
particular routines are available in both fields of science, but
still there is a long way to go. Without any doubt, we will
see major advances in the near future.
Acknowledgments
This article was written during my sabbatical stay at the University
of California at Santa Barbara. I am grateful to the program
Spatial@UCSB, to Prof. Michael Goodchild, and to the ITC direc-
torate for making this stay possible.
References
Addink, E. and Stein, A., 1999. A comparison of conventional and
geostatistical methods to replace clouded pixels in NOAA-
AVHRR images. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 20,
961–977.
Aronoff, S., 1991. Geographic information systems: a manage-
ment perspective. Ottawa: WDL Publications.
Atkinson, P.M. Pardo-Iguzquiza, E. and Chica-Olmo, M., 2008.
Downscaling cokriging for super-resolution mapping of con-
tinua in remotely sensed images. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 46 (2), 573–580.
Besag, J.E., 1986. On the statistical analysis of dirty pictures (with
discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series B,
48, 259–302.
 Annals of GIS
Bishop, C.M., 2006. Pattern recognition and machine learning.
New York: Springer.
Breiman, L., 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning, 45 (1), 5–32.
Brooks, R.A., 1985. A robust layer control system for a mobile
robotics.MIT Artifical Intelligence Laboratory, Internal
Report 864. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Burrough, P.A., 1986. Principles of geographic information systems
for land resource assessment. Monographs on Soil and
Resources Survey No. 12. Oxford: Oxford Science Publications.
Burrough, P.A., 2001. GIS and geostatistics: essential partners for
spatial analysis. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 8
(4), 361–377.
Chrisman, N.R., 1991. The error component in spatial data. In: D.J.
Maguire, M.F. Goodchild and D.W. Rhind, eds., Geographical
information systems: principles and applications, Vol. 1,
165–174. Harlow: Longman Scientific & Technical.
Congalton, R.G. and Green, K., 1999. Assessing the accuracy of
remotely sensed data: principles and practices. Boca Raton:
Lewis publishers.
Cressie, N.A.C., 1991. Statistics for spatial data. New York:
Springer.
Cristianini, N. and Shawe-Taylor, J., 2000. An Introduction to support
vector machines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curran, P.J., 1988. The semivariogram in remote sensing: An intro-
duction. Remote Sensing of Environment, 24 (3), 493–507.
Curran, P.J. and Atkinson, P.M., 1998. Geostatistics and remote
sensing. Progress in Physical Geography, 22 (1), 61–78.
Devillers, R., Bedard, Y., and Jeansoulin, R., 2005.
Multidimensional management of geospatial data quality infor-
mation for its dynamic use within GIS. Photogrammetric
Engineering & Remote Sensing, 71 (2), 205–215.
Dilo, A., De By, R., and Stein, A., 2006. A system of types and
operators for handling vague spatial objects. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21 (4), 397–426.
Dubois, D. and Jaulent, M.C., 1987. A general approach to para-
meter evaluation in fuzzy digital pictures. Pattern recognition
letters, 6, 251–259.
Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E., and Stork, D.G., 2000. Pattern classifica-
tion. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Gelfand, A.E., Diggle, P.J., Guttorp, P., and Fuentes, M., 2010.
Handbook of spatial statistics. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall
CRC Press.
Geman, S. and Geman, D., 1984. Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs
distribution, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE
Transactions in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
6, 721–741.
Glasbey, G.A. and Horgan, G.W., 1995. Image analysis for the
biological sciences. Chichester: Wiley.
Goodchild, M.F., 1999. Future directions in Geographic
Information Science. Annals of GIS, 5 (1), 1–8.
Heijting, S., Van der Werf, W., Kruijer, W., and Stein, A., 2007.
Testing the spatial significance of weed patterns in arable land
using Mead’s test. Weed Research 47, 396–405.
ISO (2002). ISO 19113:2002 Geographic information – quality
principles, 27 pp. Available at: http://www.iso.org/ (accessed
23 November 2010).
221
Karimov, A., 2010. Graph cuts for fast optimization in Markov
random field based remote sensing image analysis. Thesis
(M.Sc), Twente University, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Mercer, W.B. and Hall, A.D, 1911. Experimental errors of
field trials. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Cambridge,
4, 107–132.
Mustafa, Y., Van Laake, P., and Stein, A., 2010. Bayesian
Network Modeling for Improving forest growth estimates.
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, in
press. DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2010.2058581.
Polder, G., et al., 2007. Robot system for weed detection using
textural image analysis. In: 6th Biennial Conference of the
European Federation of IT in Agriculture (EFITA), , Glasgow.
Rajasekar, U., Stein, A., and Bijker, W., 2006. Image mining for
modeling of forest fires from Meteosat images. IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45 (1),
246–253.
Ripley, B.D., 1996. Pattern recognition and neural networks.
Cambrige: Cambridge University Press.
Skidmore, A.K., Turner, B.J., Brinkhof, W., and Knowles, E.,
1997. Performance of a neural network: mapping forests
using GIS and remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric
Engineering & Remote Sensing, 63 (5), 501–514.
Stein, A., 2008. Modern developments in image mining. Science in
China Series E: Technological Sciences, 51 (Suppl. 1), 13–25.
Stein, A., Shi, W., and Bijker, W., eds., 2008. Quality aspects in
spatial data mining. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Stein, A., Van der Meer, F., and Gorte, B., eds., 1999. Spatial
statistics for remote sensing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Thrun, S., Burgard, W., and Fox, D., 2005. Probabilistic robotics.
Cambrige, MA: MIT Press.
Tolpekin, V. A. and Stein, A., 2009. Scale effects and para-
meter optimization for super resolution mapping from
satellite images with Markov Random Fields. IEEE
Transactions in Geoscience and Remote Sensing 47 (9),
3283–3297.
Van de Kassteele, J., et al., 2006. Statistical mapping of PM10
concentrations over Western Europe using secondary informa-
tion from dispersion modeling and MODIS satellite observa-
tions. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
(SERRA), 21 (2), 183–194.
Van de Vlag, D. and Stein, A., 2006. Uncertainty propagation in
hierarchical classification using fuzzy decision trees. IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45 (1),
237–245.
Van Groenigen, J.W. and Stein, A., 1998. Constrained Optimization
of Spatial Sampling using Continuous Simulated Annealing.
Journal of Environmental Quality, 27, 1078–1086.
Van Lieshout, M.J. and Baddeley, A.A., 1999. Indices of dependence
between types in multivariate point patterns. Scandinavian
Journal of Statistics, 26, 511–532.
Xiao, S., 2008. Use of Boosting methods to improve object-
oriented classification for vegetation mapping in Kyabobo
National Park, Ghana. Thesis (MSc). Twente University,
Enschede, the Netherlands.