Random forests with spatial proxies for environmental modelling: opportunities and pitfalls.

Spatial proxies, such as coordinates and distance fields, are often added as predictors in random forest (RF) models without any modifications being made to the algorithm to account for residual autocorrelation and improve predictions. However, their suitability under different predictive conditions encountered in environmental applications has not yet been assessed. We investigate (1) the suitability of spatial proxies depending on the modelling objective (interpolation vs. extrapolation), the strength of the residual spatial autocorrelation, and the sampling pattern; (2) which validation methods can be used as a model selection tool to empirically assess the suitability of spatial proxies; and (3) the effect of using spatial proxies in real-world environmental applications. We designed a simulation study to assess the suitability of RF regression models using three different types of spatial proxies: coordinates, Euclidean distance fields (EDFs), and random forest spatial prediction (RFsp). We also tested the ability of probability sampling test points, random k -fold cross-validation (CV), and k -fold nearest neighbour distance matching (kNNDM) CV to reflect the true prediction performance and correctly rank models. As real-world case studies, we modelled annual average air temperature and fine particulate air pollution for continental Spain. In the simulation study, we found that RFs with spatial proxies were poorly suited for spatial extrapolation to new areas due to significant feature extrapolation. For spatial interpolation, proxies were beneficial when both strong residual autocorrelation and regularly or randomly distributed training samples were present. In all other cases, proxies were neutral or counterproductive. Random k -fold cross-validation generally favoured models with spatial proxies even when it was not appropriate, whereas probability test samples and kNNDM CV correctly ranked models. In the case studies, air temperature stations were well spread within the prediction area, and measurements exhibited strong spatial autocorrelation, leading to an effective use of spatial proxies. Air pollution stations were clustered and autocorrelation was weaker and thus spatial proxies were not beneficial. As the benefits of spatial proxies are not universal, we recommend using spatial exploratory and validation analyses to determine their suitability, as well as considering alternative inherently spatial modelling approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]