Ozone is a harmful air pollutant at ground level, and its concentrations are measured with routine monitoring networks. Due to the heterogeneous nature of ozone fields, the spatial distribution of the ozone concentration measurements is very important. Therefore, the evaluation of distributed monitoring networks is of both theoretical and practical interests. In this study, we assess the efficiency of the ozone monitoring network over France (BDQA) by investigating a network reduction problem. We examine how well a subset of the BDQA network can represent the full network. The performance of a subnetwork is taken to be the root mean square error (RMSE) of the hourly ozone mean concentration estimations over the whole network given the observations from that subnetwork. Spatial interpolations are conducted for the ozone estimation taking into account the spatial correlations. Several interpolation methods, namely ordinary kriging, simple kriging, kriging about the means, and consistent kriging about the means, are compared for a reliable estimation. Exponential models are employed for the spatial correlations. It is found that the statistical information about the means improves significantly the kriging results, and that it is necessary to consider the correlation model to be hourly-varying and daily stationary. The network reduction problem is solved using a simulated annealing algorithm. Significant improvements can be obtained through these optimizations. For instance, removing optimally half the stations leads to an estimation error of the order of the standard observational error (10 μgm−3). The resulting optimal subnetworks are dense in urban agglomerations around Paris (Île-de-France) and Nice (Côte d'Azur), where high ozone concentrations and strong heterogeneity are observed. The optimal subnetworks are probably dense near frontiers because beyond these frontiers there is no observation to reduce the uncertainty of the ozone field. For large rural regions, the stations are uniformly distributed. The fractions between urban, suburban and rural stations are rather constant for optimal subnetworks of larger size (beyond 100 stations). By contrast, for smaller subnetworks, the urban stations dominate.