Advances in Meteorology

Advances in Meteorology / 2020 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 9185283 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9185283

Wenjun Wu, Ruijie Gan, Junli Li, Xiu Cao, Xinxin Ye, Jie Zhang, Hongjiao Qu, "A Spatial Interpolation of Meteorological Parameters considering Geographic Semantics", Advances in Meteorology, vol. 2020, Article ID 9185283, 14 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9185283

A Spatial Interpolation of Meteorological Parameters considering Geographic Semantics

Academic Editor: Maria Ángeles García
Received27 Aug 2019
Revised26 Mar 2020
Accepted12 Aug 2020
Published02 Sep 2020

Abstract

Spatial interpolation of meteorological parameters, closely related to the earth surface, plays important roles in climatological study. However, most of traditional spatial interpolation methods ignore the geographic semantics of interpolation sample points in practical application. This paper attempts to propose an improved inverse-distance weighting interpolation algorithm considering geographic semantics (S-IDW), which adds geographic semantic similarity to the traditional IDW formula and adjusts weight coefficient. In the interpolation process, the geographic semantic differences between sample points and estimation points are considered comprehensively. In this study, 3 groups of land surface temperature data from 2 different areas were selected for experiments, and several commonly used spatial interpolation methods were compared. Experimental results indicated that S-IDW outperformed IDW and several existing spatial interpolation methods, but there were also some abnormal value and interpolation outliers. This method provides a new insight toward the estimation accuracy, data missing, and error correction of spatial attributes related to meteorological parameters.

1. Introduction

Spatial interpolation of meteorological parameters is to obtain relatively accurate descriptions of spatial attributes related to climatological dynamics and weather patterns by using some reasonably located samples [1]. Traditionally, sampling observation is the best way to obtain the regional mean conditions in order to ensure equal sampling opportunities for each location in the region. However, the observation sampling points are sparse and of random distribution in practical application [1]. For example, the location of the sample points is systematic and changes smoothly. Furthermore, most meteorological models are obtained by sampling from observation stations at present. Spatial interpolation method is widely used to transform discrete observation data into continuous surface so as to better measure the spatial distribution pattern of data elements [2]. Currently, familiar spatial interpolation methods, such as IDW, Kriging, Spline, and trend surface method, have been widely used in different fields. Most of them have some limitations in application, such as distance weighting method with some problems, which affects calculation results due to distance, being not suitable for a large range [3]. Kriging method can adopt different variogram forms and parameters for different sampling data points, with certain flexibility. However, it loses the high efficiency of the original inverse-distance weighting method by first determining the variogram form and fitting the parameters of variogram. Kriging variograms require artificial selection, and there exists the problem that computation increases sharply when there are too many combinations of variograms [4]. Spline method is not suitable for sparse and finite sampling points and is often used for high-density sample point interpolation [5]. The trend surface method relies more on the existing spatial distribution trend of interpolation elements [6]. Consequently, many authors have carried on the continuous exploration and improvement to the spatial interpolation method [7]. For instance, the complexity of terrain and elevation factor were introduced by some researchers into the inverse-distance weighting [8, 9], and Li et al. brought the harmonic weighting coefficient of azimuth into the distance weighting interpolation [2]. The natural neighborhood relationship was led into the distance weighting interpolation [10], and some authors introduced the fuzzy trigonometric function into the distance weighting interpolation [3]. Others took into account the spatiotemporal variation characteristics of geographical factors and introduced time-series data to remove some numerical fluctuations in time, such as spatiotemporal weighting Kriging and spatiotemporal inverse-distance weighting interpolation [9]. The succession of methods proposed by the above-mentioned authors had achieved remarkable academic impact and showed high spatial autocorrelation, but most of them were based on numerical interpolation methods, without considering geographic semantics.

Inspired by the gradient theory in the field of image processing, the gradient is the first-order differential of gray value, reflecting the change rate between adjacent pixels in the direction of X and Y [11]. Where the gradient change rate of image is larger in the region, the types of land cover tend to change, such as the boundary between land and water in the image. Existing research based on remote sensing image inversion, such as land surface temperature (LST), vegetation index, and moisture index, is to some extent a model to describe the relationship between remote sensing signals or remote sensing data and surface applications [12]. For example, the temperature nearby residential buildings is quite different from forest land or water body. The air temperature of some exposed land surfaces, like build roofs and pavement, is hotter than that of the shades of forests. Therefore, geographic semantics are indispensable to exploring geospatial description of surface remote sensing pixel information. Currently, some authors have put forward semantic Kriging method, which has achieved excellent research results, but there are still some problems such as the complexity of calculating the variogram imported by the semantic similarity [1315]. In addition, the prediction of multivariable meteorological factors by embedding geographic semantics into Bayesian networks weakens the influence of parameter uncertainty but lacks the knowledge of meteorological modeling [16]. Although the aforementioned spatial interpolation methods show performance in different applications, there still exists scope of improvements by introducing geographic semantics into spatial interpolation process. Furthermore, information semantics are growing in the field of spatial statistics and environmental modeling [17, 18].

This paper attempts to introduce the geographic semantics into inverse weighting spatial interpolation by embedding hierarchical geographic semantics into spatial interpolation model and using semantic similarity to measure factor weight. The following analyses were carried out in this study: (1) the S-IDW methods used in this study are explained in the next section; (2) the findings are discussed in the Experimental Results and Comparison section; (3) finally, our conclusions and subsequent research are drawn in the Conclusions section.

2. Methodology

The S-IDW integrates the geographic semantic knowledge into the inverse-distance weighting interpolation method. Considering the effect of distance on interpolation results, the influence of land-use type on land surface temperature interpolation is added. The S-IDW reconsiders the interpolation weight, increases the weight of the same land-use type, and reduces the weight of different land-use types on the basis of distance, constructing the S-IDW method [19].

In the S-IDW, the first step is to calculate the semantic similarity of geographic entities. The formula is as follows:

In equations (1)–(4), is the estimated value of the th point to be interpolated; is the measured value of the th discrete point; is the distance between the th discrete point and the th point to be interpolated; is the latitude of the point to be interpolated; is latitude of discrete points; is the longitude of the point to be interpolated; is the longitude of the discrete point; is the number of measured sample points participating in the interpolation; is the power exponent, which controls the degree to which the weight coefficient decreases with the increase of the distance between the point to be interpolated and the sample point. When is larger, the closer sample point is endowed with higher weight; when is smaller, the weight is more evenly distributed to all sample points. When , it is called inverse-distance weighting method, which is a common and simple spatial interpolation method. When , it is called inverse-distance squared method, which is often used in practical application. In this study, is taken.

is the semantic similarity between the th point to be interpolated and the th discrete point, and the value range is . Semantic similarity refers to the degree to which two concepts can replace each other in the same context without changing the semantic structure of the text [19]. The larger the change of semantic structure, the smaller the similarity; the smaller the change of semantic structure, the greater the similarity. In this study, a comprehensive semantic similarity algorithm for geographic ontology is adopted. On the basis of analyzing the influencing factors of semantic distance similarity, the weighted sum method is used to calculate semantic distance similarity, concept attribute similarity, and information similarity. The calculation formula is as follows [20]:

The semantic similarity is calculated by referring to the hierarchical structure of geographical entities in Table 1 and Figure 1. In formulas (5)–(8), is the semantic distance, which refers to the shortest path between any two concept nodes and b in the ontology hierarchy, and is the regulating factor. In this paper,  = 8. represents the similarity of concept attributes between concept nodes and b. The function is the set of entity attributes, and is the number of attributes. In addition, , is a real number, and its value is controlled at [0, 2max (IC (a, b))], where . The information quantity is defined as the function of the occurrence probability of concept a. In equation (5), when the land-use types of the th point to be interpolated and the th discrete point are equivalent,; when the land-use types of the th point to be interpolated and the th discrete point are not equivalent, .


Geographic entitiesParent classParent useSpecific usesCover (or location)Operational characteristics

01 FarmlandLandAgricultural productionPlanting cropsCrops
02 Garden plotLandAgricultural productionPlanting and collecting fruit, leaf, and root cropsPerennial woody plants and herbsIntensive management
03 WoodlandLandAgricultural productionGrowing trees, bamboos, shrubs, and coastal mangrovesWoody plantsProduction management, ecological management
04 GrasslandLandAgricultural productionGrowing herbsHerbs
05 Commercial landLandBuilding constructionConstructing business and service industryHouses, buildings
06 Industrial mining warehouse landLandBuilding constructionConstructing industrial production and material storage sitesHouses, buildings
07 Residential landLandBuilding constructionConstructing living placesHouses, buildings
08 Public management and service landLandBuilding constructionConstructing public management and public service placesHouses, buildings
09 Special landLandBuilding constructionBuilding constructionHouses, buildings
10 Transport landLandBuilding constructionConstructing ground routes and stations for transportState-owned
11 Waters and water conservancy facility landLandHydraulic structures of land waters, shallows, ditches, and marshes
12 Other landsLand

In equation (5), , , and ; , and are the adjustment coefficients of semantic distance similarity, concept attribute similarity, and information similarity, respectively; . and are geographical entities. For the convenience of calculation, GB/T21010-2017 classification of land use in China and its meaning are used to extract geographical entities. The semantic attributes of geographical entities are shown in Table 1, and the ontological hierarchical network structure of land-use status classification is shown in Figure 1. Based on equation (5), the semantic similarity for some geographical entities of land-use type ontology is calculated as shown in Table 2.


Geographic entities01 Farmland02 Garden plot03 Woodland04 Grassland07 Residential land10 Transport land11 Waters and water conservancy facility land

01 Farmland10.41980.42180.41980.25760.26280.2632
02 Garden plot0.419810.42290.42070.25850.2640.2645
03 Woodland0.42180.422910.42290.25970.26670.2665
04 Grassland0.41980.42070.422910.25850.2640.2645
07 Residential land0.25760.25850.25970.258510.42120.2616
10 Transport land0.26280.2640.26670.2640.421210.2685
11 Waters and water conservancy facility land0.26320.26450.26650.26450.26160.26851

3. Experimental Results and Comparison

3.1. Experimental Design and Error Metric

The experimental study has been carried out using land surface temperature (LST) data from Landsat 8 OLI-TIRS satellite. Due to the complex and changeable surface environment, LST shows different characteristics in different surface environments. In order to explore the spatial interpolation accuracy in different areas and different land surface temperatures, LST at diverse time intervals were selected in the 2 study areas, and 3 distinct LST conditions of high temperature, low temperature, and normal temperature were used to carry out experiments. The interpolation accuracy of traditional numerical interpolation methods is often closely related to the density and sparsity of the discrete points. In this paper, the discrete points and the points to be valued are selected randomly and distributed evenly. 15 points to be valued and 60 discrete points were randomly selected in the experiment. Assuming that the LST values of the 15 points are missing or abnormal, we use 60 discrete points of known LST values to interpolate the 15 points in order to compensate for and correct the missing or abnormal values. The popular approaches for spatial interpolation include Kriging, IDW, Natural, Spline, and S-IDW. On this basis, we compared and analyzed the results of 5 interpolation methods with the original LST values of 15 points to be valued. As shown in Figure 2, the experimental flow chart of semantic inverse-distance weighting interpolation is shown.

In the experiment, the accuracy of the estimated value is evaluated by means of root mean squared of errors (RMSE) [21], mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) [16], and the ratio of variance of the estimated values to variance of the observed values (RVAR) [22, 23]. The formal definition of each indicator is given as follows:

In formulas (10)–(13), is the total number of measured values; is the measured value of the th discrete point; is the estimated value of the th point to be interpolated; is the average value of measured value at discrete point; is the average value of the estimated value of the point to be evaluated; is the variance of the estimated value of the point to be interpolated; is the variance of measured value at discrete point. The best fitting between measured value and estimated value under ideal conditions can be obtained as follows: RMSE≈0, MAE≈0, MAPE≈0, and RVAR≈1.

3.2. Analysis and Discussion of the Interpolation Results in Study Area-1

In order to verify the interpolation effect of S-IDW under three temperature environments, the imaging dates of the remote sensing images in study area-1 are January 11, 2018, April 17, 2018, and August 9, 2013. The corresponding image clouds are 0.54%, 0.05%, and 4.76%, respectively. Under these conditions, LST inversion is carried out and the inversion data are extracted and processed. The distribution of 60 discrete points and 15 points to be valued in study area-1 is shown in Figure 3.

Interpolation data results and interpolation accuracy of five methods under low-temperature conditions in study area-1 can be seen in Tables 35. As shown in Table 3, the interpolation results of S-IDW for 8 of the 15 points to be valued are closer to the land surface temperature than those of the other 4 interpolation methods. Generally, through the mathematical statistics analysis and Pearson correlation analysis of the five interpolation methods, it is indicated that the MAE, MAPE, and RMSE of S-IDW are closer to the best fitting values between measured and estimated values under ideal conditions than the other 4 interpolation methods. As far as RVAR is concerned, Natural and Spline are better than S-IDW, but S-IDW is better than Kriging and IDW. In terms of Pearson correlation, the results of S-IDW, Kriging, IDW, and Natural interpolation are significantly correlated with LST at 0.01 level (two-tailed), of which the correlation coefficient r between S-IDW interpolation results and LST is 0.959, with the strongest correlation, and the significant correlation coefficient r between Spline interpolation results and LST was 0.616 at 0.05 level (two-tailed), with the weakest correlation.


Study area-1Forecast date: January 11, 2018Forecasting methods (unit of temperature: °C)
Point to be valuedLand-use typesLatLonLSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

1Farmland 131.743115.911.4281.761.5521.5721.5771.356
2Farmland 231.688115.9743.6242.5692.6412.6952.6042.234
3Farmland 331.682115.8762.3941.9241.9092.3052.2942.028
4Farmland 431.671115.9242.4292.432.8522.972.7412.003
5Woodland 131.745115.9472.1861.8401.7291.5441.5071.306
6Woodland 231.741115.7921.1631.1160.9140.9330.8970.953
7Woodland 331.731115.8481.2261.5331.4831.3231.2960.573
8Woodland 431.685115.7221.2821.2310.9620.7140.3590.405
9Residential land 131.77115.9311.7031.1681.1431.0951.0490.774
10Residential land 231.724115.9421.6312.0832.0752.0672.071.807
11Residential land 331.702115.8032.1132.1081.5151.3651.4750.299
12Transport land 131.669115.9512.3642.3482.262.3482.0951.923
13Transport land 231.59115.9172.3242.3662.2321.5555.5925.458
14Waters and water conservancy facility land 131.625115.865.1255.4314.3734.0543.927-0.376
15Waters and water conservancy facility land 231.623115.9997.966.2845.5245.6175.7537.651


Study areaForecasting methodsForecast dateJanuary 11, 2018
RMSEMAEMAPE (%)RVAR

Study area-1S-IDW0.5810.3767.0910.674
IDW0.7840.55214.8590.492
Kriging0.8300.61517.4470.512
Natural1.1730.8139.5440.788
Spline1.8041.14527.1031.326


Study area-1LSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

LSTPearson correlation10.959 0.954 0.944 0.763 0.616
Significance (two-tailed)0.0000.0000.0000.0010.015
N151515151515

Significant correlation at 0.01 level (two-tailed). ∗Significant correlation at 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Interpolation data results and accuracy of five methods under normal temperature conditions in study area-1 can be seen in Tables 68. As shown in Table 6, the interpolation results of S-IDW for 8 of the 15 points to be estimated are closer to the land surface temperature than those of the other 4 interpolation methods. Generally, through the mathematical statistics analysis and Pearson correlation analysis of the 5 interpolation methods, it is found that the MAE, MAPE, and RMSE of S-IDW are closer to the best fitting values between measured and estimated values under ideal conditions than the other 4 interpolation methods. In terms of MAPE, Natural is better than S-IDW, but S-IDW is better than Kriging, IDW, and Spline. In terms of RVAR, Spline is better than S-IDW, but S-IDW is better than Kriging. In terms of Pearson correlation, the results of S-IDW, Kriging, IDW, Natural, and Spline are significantly correlated with LST at 0.01 level (two-tailed), of which the correlation coefficient r between S-IDW interpolation results and LST is 0.930, with the strongest correlation.


Study area-1Forecast date: January 11, 2018Forecasting methods (unit of temperature: °C)
Point to be valuedLand-use typesLatLonLSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

1Farmland 131.743115.9128.26626.24727.01426.98125.91528.132
2Farmland 231.688115.97424.05625.68726.02225.97726.25127.399
3Farmland 331.682115.87627.65726.70827.34224.6626.98328.251
4Farmland 431.671115.92425.58625.06924.75824.76124.90327.626
5Woodland 131.745115.94727.25427.54228.95928.50228.85228.134
6Woodland 231.741115.79224.07924.04924.34123.97224.7424.979
7Woodland 331.731115.84822.26323.85924.20224.38223.47223.559
8Woodland 431.685115.72221.08322.45022.47322.44723.38619.394
9Residential land 131.77115.93130.30929.53329.47228.71729.13728.786
10Residential land 231.724115.94228.41828.90928.88228.34129.63130.642
11Residential land 331.702115.80326.47524.42823.53423.27723.50626.003
12Transport land 131.669115.95126.79426.03426.47125.36526.55126.961
13Transport land 231.59115.91726.19124.14523.21623.35621.92522.816
14Waters and water conservancy facility land 131.625115.8620.92521.04221.69321.93721.73124.497
15Waters and water conservancy facility land 231.623115.99917.67319.39120.45120.95418.99817.321


Study areaForecasting methodsForecast timeApr. 17, 2018
RMSEMAEMAPE (%)RVAR

Study area-1S-IDW1.2951.0900.5140.640
IDW1.6681.3833.3290.651
Kriging1.9591.6860.9010.497
Natural1.8861.5780.2780.763
Spline1.8911.5041.9811.127


Study area-1LSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

LSTPerson correlation10.930 0.867 0.817 0.824 0.859
Significance (two-tailed)0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
N151515151515

Significant correlation at 0.01 level (two-tailed).

The interpolation data results and accuracy of five methods under high-temperature conditions in study area-1 can be seen in Tables 911. As shown in Table 9, the interpolation results of the S-IDW for 4 of the 15 points to be valued are closer to the land surface temperature than those of the other 4 interpolation methods. Generally, through the mathematical statistics analysis and Person correlation analysis of the 5 interpolation methods, it is indicated that the MAE and RMSE of S-IDW are closer to the best fitting values between measured and estimated values under ideal conditions than the other 4 interpolation methods. As far as MAPE is concerned, 1.252% of S-IDW is higher than 0.781% of IDW and 0.057% of Spline but lower than 1.818% of Kriging and 1.253% of Natural. In terms of RVAR, 0.983 of Natural is better than 0.827 of S-IDW, but S-IDW is better than Kriging and Natural. In terms of Person correlation, the interpolation results of S-IDW, Kriging, IDW, Natural, and Spline are significantly correlated with LST at 0.01 level (two-tailed), of which the correlation coefficient r between S-IDW and LST was 0.914, stronger than 0.843 of IDW, 0.794 of Kriging, 0.791 of Natural, and 0.669 of Spline.


Study area-1Forecast date: Aug. 9, 2013Forecasting methods (unit of temperature: °C)
Point to be valuedLand-use typesLatLonLSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

1Farmland 131.743115.91044.08644.57245.29944.96843.37741.169
2Farmland 231.688115.97445.80144.90245.30545.54945.35545.859
3Farmland 331.682115.87644.47345.43445.59242.25545.38546.336
4Farmland 431.671115.92445.27744.08043.17443.51542.79145.183
5Woodland 131.745115.94744.36945.91647.38346.87047.56948.472
6Woodland 231.741115.79243.86941.35241.86241.05342.56843.502
7Woodland 331.731115.84839.67441.12640.75841.10140.36240.240
8Woodland 431.685115.72239.96239.63539.50939.79539.72236.678
9Residential land 131.770115.93149.09248.77448.79447.18048.84949.691
10Residential land 231.724115.94248.10647.02747.06646.58047.48248.167
11Residential land 331.702115.80344.39542.42641.77041.32642.26943.038
12Transport land 131.669115.95146.80245.41646.64544.79746.87847.756
13Transport land 231.590115.91745.97342.30141.06340.91238.71839.513
14Waters and water conservancy facility land 131.625115.86037.50237.87838.79439.14339.56845.812
15Waters and water conservancy facility land 231.623115.99936.88737.21338.13039.29437.15235.224


Study areaForecasting methodsForecast timeAug. 9, 2013
RMSEMAEMAPE (%)RVAR

Study area-1S-IDW1.5311.2341.2520.827
IDW1.9551.5370.7810.870
Kriging2.2901.9771.8180.605
Natural2.3401.5091.2530.983
Spline3.2332.1770.0571.450


Study area-1LSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

LSTPearson correlation10.914 0.843 0.794 0.791 0.669
Significance (two-tailed)0.0000.0000.0000.0000.006
N151515151515

Significant correlation at 0.01 level (two-tailed).
3.3. Analysis and Discussion of Interpolation Results in Study Area-2

In order to verify the interpolation effect of S-IDW under three temperature environments, the imaging dates of the remote sensing images in study area-1 are February 11, 2017, April 19, 2018, and July 10, 2013. The corresponding image clouds are 0.54%, 0.05%, and 4.76%, respectively. Under these conditions, LST inversion is carried out and the inversion data are extracted and processed. The distribution of 60 discrete points and 15 points to be valued in study area-2 is shown in Figure 4.

Interpolation data results and accuracy of 5 methods under low temperature conditions in study area-2 can be seen in Tables 1214. As shown in Table 12, the interpolation results of S-IDW for 9 of the 15 points to be valued are closer to the land surface temperature than those of the other 4 interpolation methods. The interpolation result of S-IDW at point 11 to be valued is 9.052°C, which deviates from the LST value more than the interpolation results of other 4 interpolation methods. Generally, through the mathematical statistics analysis and Pearson correlation analysis of the 5 interpolation methods, it is known that the MAE, MAPE, RVAR, and RMSE of S-IDW are closer to the best fitting values between measured and estimated values under ideal conditions than those of the other 4 interpolation methods. In terms of Pearson correlation, the results of S-IDW, Kriging, IDW, Natural, and Spline are significantly correlated with LST at 0.01 level (two-tailed), of which the correlation coefficient r between S-IDW interpolation results and LST is 0.890.


Study area-2Forecast date: Feb. 11, 2017Forecasting methods (unit of temperature °C)
Point to be valuedLand-use typesLatLonLSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

1Farmland 129.835118.2667.9008.2058.5179.0198.9719.778
2Farmland 229.697118.2286.9028.8678.1068.1258.2548.812
3Woodland 129.914118.1391.9391.3161.192−0.869−0.065−1.176
4Woodland 229.900118.3306.9397.6588.8428.6708.6518.373
5Woodland 329.894118.5247.1477.7988.6378.9829.02510.682
6Woodland 429.842118.5246.9486.2347.1396.7886.3907.234
7Woodland 529.750118.5253.1882.6622.8731.0542.0140.001
8Woodland 629.698118.1089.3407.2558.8548.9218.6799.470
9Woodland 729.677118.3535.9605.5087.4215.4514.1362.635
10Residential land 129.832118.3378.2898.8148.9038.8428.8769.143
11Residential land 229.756118.2647.2019.0528.5898.1728.2838.133
12Transport land 129.758118.0917.0877.7767.7989.1948.6989.734
13Transport land 229.727118.2048.0008.1028.6978.5388.5099.173
14Waters and water conservancy facility land 129.903118.2417.4316.9696.5936.7857.0027.174
15Waters and water conservancy facility land 229.816118.4257.8037.9338.7148.6768.6368.850


Study areaForecasting methodsForecast timeFeb. 11, 2017
RMSEMAEMAPE (%)RVAR

Study area-2S-IDW1.000.7862.0331.389
IDW1.0190.9058.6211.473
Kriging1.3951.1754.1872.576
Natural1.2671.1523.9042.205
Spline2.0641.7145.8203.73


Study area-2LSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

LSTPearson correlation10.890 0.934 0.942 0.925 0.909
Significance (two-tailed)0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
N151515151515

Significant correlation at 0.01 level (two-tailed).

The interpolation data results and accuracy of 5 methods under normal temperature conditions in study area-2 can be seen in Tables 1517. As shown in Table 15, the interpolation results of S-IDW for 6 of the 15 points to be valued are closer to the land surface temperature than those of the other 4 interpolation methods. The LST value of point 11 to be valued is 25.245°C, and the S-IDW interpolation result of this point to be valued is 30.266°C, which deviates from the LST value more than the interpolation results of the other 4 interpolation methods. Generally, through the mathematical statistics analysis and Pearson correlation analysis of the 5 interpolation methods, it is known that the MAE and RMSE of S-IDW are closer to the best fitting values between measured and estimated values under ideal conditions than those of the other 4 interpolation methods. In terms of MAPE, 1.856% of S-IDW is higher than 1.723% of Natural but lower than Kriging, IDW, and Spline. As far as RVAR is concerned, 1.051 of Natural and 0.844 of IDW are closer to the best fitting values between measured values and estimated values under ideal conditions than 0.806 of S-IDW. In terms of Pearson correlation, the results of S-IDW and Natural interpolation are significantly correlated with LST at 0.05 level (two-tailed), of which the correlation coefficient r between S-IDW interpolation results and LST is 0.620, with the strongest correlation.


Study area-2Forecast date: Apr. 19, 2018Forecasting methods (unit of temperature: °C)
Point to be valuedLand-use typesLatLonLSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

1Farmland 129.835118.26628.31929.32930.20528.29531.40233.163
2Farmland 229.697118.22827.91328.66927.28927.57727.14726.398
3Woodland 129.914118.13926.57325.33325.08125.91624.63624.906
4Woodland 229.900118.33026.71028.89329.93030.32629.20428.371
5Woodland 329.894118.52427.72228.71729.12328.66529.35032.286
6Woodland 429.842118.52426.71527.14527.10027.19927.44230.523
7Woodland 529.750118.52526.03925.03224.70426.02724.67925.179
8Woodland 629.698118.10829.60027.46827.92728.22627.65830.677
9Woodland 729.677118.35326.20527.29829.02628.41726.65118.758
10Residential land 129.832118.33732.11530.85530.57930.71230.15430.312
11Residential land 229.756118.26425.24530.20429.72429.50629.51128.246
12Transport land 129.758118.09128.04428.27027.95826.82829.34635.263
13Transport land 229.727118.20428.17028.28928.01628.06328.07530.576
14Waters and water conservancy facility land 129.903118.24123.05324.55625.23427.37025.12524.395
15Waters and water conservancy facility land 229.816118.42526.72726.61627.85628.52025.82324.521


Study areaForecasting methodsForecast timeApr. 19, 2018
RMSEMAEMAPE (%)RVAR

Study area-2S-IDW1.7191.2681.8390.805
IDW1.9951.6272.5910.844
Kriging2.0811.5123.0540.461
Natural1.9651.6661.7231.051
Spline3.6593.0183.5254.369


Study area-2LSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

LSTPearson correlation10.6170.5140.3820.5410.513
Significance (two-tailed)0.0140.0500.1590.0370.051
N151515151515

Significant correlation at 0.05 level (two-tailed).

The interpolation data results and accuracy of the 5 methods under high-temperature conditions in study area-2 can be seen in Tables 1820. As shown in Table 18, the interpolation results of S-IDW for 5 of the 15 points to be valued are closer to the land surface temperature than those of the other 4 interpolation methods. The LST value of point 2 to be valued is 37.981°C and the interpolation result of S-IDW at point 2 is 35.398°C, which deviates from the LST value more than Spline interpolation but is better than Kriging, IDW, and Natural interpolation, similar to that of point 10. Generally, through the mathematical statistics analysis and Pearson correlation analysis of the 5 interpolation methods, it is found that the MAE, MAPE, and RMSE of S-IDW are closer to the best fitting values between measured and estimated values under ideal conditions than those of the other 4 interpolation methods. As far as RVAR is concerned, 0.870 of Kriging and 0.813 of Natural are closer to the best fitting values between measured values and estimated values under ideal conditions than 0.695 of S-IDW. In terms of Pearson correlation, the results of S-IDW, Kriging, IDW, Natural, and Spline interpolation are significantly correlated with LST at 0.01 level (two-tailed), of which the correlation coefficient r between S-IDW interpolation results and LST is 0.906, with the strongest correlation.


Study area-2Forecast date: Jul. 10, 2013Forecasting methods (unit of temperature: °C)
Point to be valuedLand-use typesLatLonLSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

1Farmland 129.835118.26635.07136.73038.01838.40840.07143.826
2Farmland 229.697118.22837.98135.39834.92834.23034.66235.745
3Woodland 129.914118.13930.01229.22128.64327.68927.91428.126
4Woodland 229.900118.33034.16235.96337.47236.83336.13234.809
5Woodland 329.894118.52435.39536.82237.65337.50538.33140.496
6Woodland 429.842118.52436.44235.11035.72935.58635.82739.280
7Woodland 529.750118.52531.77532.23632.29731.74032.96832.647
8Woodland 629.698118.10833.57334.81734.72835.20535.34032.472
9Woodland 729.677118.35334.98036.39939.33539.14235.64429.332
10Residential land 129.832118.33741.65539.58339.38639.25539.30839.936
11Residential land 229.756118.26440.20639.69038.30738.23537.24733.101
12Transport land 129.758118.09136.34835.36334.76836.07736.81540.110
13Transport land 229.727118.20437.22135.64035.08335.24235.43838.313
14Waters and water conservancy facility land 129.903118.24128.34929.97730.23430.70530.44930.414
15Waters and water conservancy facility land 229.816118.42535.64435.75737.42836.48735.72234.758


Study areaForecasting methodsForecast timeJul. 10, 2013
RMSEMAEMAPE (%)RVAR

Study area-2S-IDW1.4511.3070.0210.695
IDW2.3032.0830.9820.835
Kriging2.3452.0470.6670.870
Natural2.3151.9530.5770.813
Spline3.8943.0480.8611.753


Study area-2LSTS-IDWIDWKrigingNaturalSpline

LSTPearson correlation10.906 0.755 0.746 0.747 0.541
Significance (two-tailed)0.0000.0010.0010.0010.037
N151515151515

Significant correlation at 0.01 level (two-tailed).

4. Conclusions

In this paper, S-IDW considering geographic semantics is proposed, which is a novel spatial interpolation algorithm of meteorological parameters. The geographical semantic similarity and weight between known observation points and estimated points are considered comprehensively, which makes the interpolation result of IDW more reasonable. We selected 2 research areas with abundant land-use types to analyze the interpolation under different temperature conditions and used 4 different statistical methods to evaluate the interpolation accuracy. At the same time, the interpolation results of 5 interpolation methods were analyzed and compared by Pearson correlation analysis. The experimental results show that the accuracy of S-IDW is generally higher than the inverse-distance weighting method, Kriging, natural neighbor interpolation, and spline function interpolation, but there are also some abnormal value and interpolation outliers. Comparing the interpolation results of five methods, it is found that the interpolation results of S-IDW are closer to the measured value of LST than those of four other interpolation methods. The MAE, MAPE, RVAR, and RMSE of S-IDW are closer to the best fitting value between the measured and estimated values under ideal conditions than those of the other 4 interpolation methods, and the correlation between the interpolation results of S-IDW and LST is also the strongest. Under the above experimental conditions, the interpolation results of S-IDW are more accurate and stable.

Note that we check the sample points involved in the calculation and find that the semantic interpolation is a little less effective than the traditional numerical interpolation when there are many surface types of the same kind. When there are more homogeneous interpolation points, there is similarity to numerical interpolation. Other interpolation methods have obvious advantages in numerical interpolation. For example, Kriging interpolation method has a wide range of applicability, which can better reflect a variety of terrain changes. Spline interpolation method is suitable for gradually changing surfaces, such as temperature, elevation, groundwater level height, or pollution level. IDW interpolation is suitable for the data with large density and uniform distribution. In our experiment, when the type of interpolation point is single, the advantage of semantic interpolation is not obvious, even less than numerical interpolation. Meanwhile, when there are more types, the semantic interpolation method is obviously better.

However, there are still defects in our study, which need to be improved in further researches. First, for the future development framework of semantic interpolation, we hope to consider the continuity of time to make up for some missing data and combine the time factor [9, 16] with semantic interpolation method to study spatiotemporal semantic interpolation. In addition, we also attempt to integrate the density, direction, elevation, and other influencing factors [610] of interpolation points into semantic interpolation and develop multifactor semantic interpolation methods. Moreover, in order to handle the complexity and uncertainty of predicting spatial attributes in most real-world problems, deep learning and artificial intelligence technology [16, 24] including logical and statistical learning algorithms can be considered as future extension of the work in the age of Big Data.

Data Availability

The S-IDW data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request via email.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Junli Li and Ruijie Gan conceived and designed the new analytical approach. Wenjun Wu, Ruijie Gan, Junli Li, and Xiu Cao wrote the paper. Xinxin Ye, Jie Zhang, and Hongjiao Qu advised on the methods applied in the study. Ruijie Gan performed the experimental analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 41571400) and supported in part by the Open Research Fund Program of Anhui Province Key Lab of Farmland Ecological Conservation and Pollution Prevention.

References

  1. M. J. De Smith, M. F. Goodchild, and P. Longley, Geospatial Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide to Principles, Techniques and Software Tools, Troubador publishing ltd, England, UK, 2007.
  2. Z. Li, Y. Wu, and C. C. Zhejiang, “Inverse distance weighted interpolation involving position shading,” Acta Geodaetica Et Cartographica Sinica, vol. 44, no. 1, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  3. G. Y. Lu and D. W. Wong, “An adaptive inverse-distance weighting spatial interpolation technique,” Computers & Geosciences, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1044–1055, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. M. Knotters, D. Brus, and J. O. Voshaar, “A comparison of kriging, Co-kriging and kriging combined with regression for spatial interpolation of horizon depth with censored observations,” Geoderma, vol. 67, no. 3-4, pp. 227–246, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. Wang, Research on Spline Interpolation Poisedness and Interpolation Approach Problems, Dalian university of technology, Dalian, China, 2004.
  6. J. Liu, H. Chen, and W. Yang, “Comparison of interpolation methods on annual mean precipitation in hebei Province,” Acta Ecologica Sinica, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 3493–3500, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  7. H. Zhang, L. Lu, Y. Liu, and W. Liu, “Spatial sampling strategies for the effect of interpolation accuracy,” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 2742–2768, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. L. D. Fang, W. H. Liao, M. Y. Wang, and W. Z. Song, “Research of the inverse distance weighted interpolation method considering the elevation,” Yellow River, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 38–41, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  9. W. Binbin, S. Lihong, L. U. Yueming, and L. T. University, “A space-time reverse distance weighted interpolation method considering elevation,” Geomatics & Spatial Information Technology, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 82–85, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  10. P. Duan, Y. Sheng, L. I. Jia, L. V. Haiyang, and S. Zhang, “Adaptive idw interpolation method and its application in the temperature field,” Geographical Research, vol. 196, no. 196, pp. 31–38, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  11. C. Solomon and T. Breckon, Fundamentals of Digital Image Processing: A Practical Approach with Examples in Matlab, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
  12. S. Bhattacharjee, P. Mitra, and S. K. Ghosh, “Spatial interpolation to predict missing attributes in gis using semantic kriging,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 4771–4780, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. S. Bhattacharjee and S. K. Ghosh, Spatio-Temporal Change Modeling of Lulc: A Semantic Kriging Approach, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
  14. S. Bhattacharjee, M. Das, S. K. Ghosh, and S. Shekhar, “Prediction of meteorological parameters: an a-posteriori probabilistic semantic kriging approach,” in Proceedings of the Acm Sigspatial International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, Chicago, IL, USA, November 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  15. S. Bhattacharjee, Prediction of Meteorological Parameters: A Semantic Kriging Approach, Acm Sigspatial, Seattle, DA, USA, 2016, Phd Workshop.
  16. M. Das and S. K. Ghosh, “Sembnet: a semantic bayesian network for multivariate prediction of meteorological time series data,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 93, p. S0167865517300028, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  17. C. Stasch, S. Scheider, E. Pebesma, and W. Kuhn, “Meaningful spatial prediction and aggregation,” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 149–165, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. F. Villa, I. N. Athanasiadis, and A. E. Rizzoli, “Modelling with knowledge: a review of emerging semantic approaches to environmental modelling,” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 577–587, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. R. Gan, A Study of Meteorological Factor Interpolation Considering Geographical Semantics, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, China, 2019.
  20. J. F. Suo, Y. Liu, and S. B. Zou, “Weighted semantic similarity algorithm based on geographic ontology,” Journal of Lanzhou University (Natural Sciences), vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 19–27, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  21. C. L. Shope and G. R. Maharjan, “Modeling spatiotemporal precipitation: effects of density, interpolation, and land use distribution,” Advances in Meteorology, vol. 2015, Article ID 174196, pp. 1–16, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. A. Mellit, A. M. Pavan, and M. Benghanem, “Least squares support vector machine for short-term prediction of meteorological time series,” Theoretical & Applied Climatology, vol. 111, no. 1-2, pp. 297–307, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. R. S. Teegavarapu, Floods in a Changing Climate: Extreme Precipitation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012.
  24. D. Zhu, X. Cheng, F. Zhang, X. Yao, Y. Gao, and Y. Liu, “Spatial interpolation using conditional generative adversarial neural networks,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 735–758, 2019. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Wenjun Wu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views170
Downloads87
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.