Geostatistical Estimation Variance for the Spatial Mean in Two-Dimensional Systematic Sampling

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology.Abstract. Many ecologists use two-dimensional systematic sampling to estimate mean density of individuals over the domain sampled. They usually calculate the variance of the mean as if the sample were a simple random sample, using the unbiased estimator under this sampling design, that is, &/n. This practice leads to a selection bias, i.e., incorrect inclusion probabilities of population units in the sample are used in the estimator of variance of the mean. The magnitude of the bias varies with the underlying spatial autocorrelation structure.Design-based inference and model-based inference are two conceptual frameworks for tackling estimation of variance of the mean in a systematic sample. This paper reports use of the geostatistical estimation variance a' with the model-based approach. This variance of the overall spatial mean depends on the spatial autocorrelation structure of the data. We illustrate the method by considering the density of acorns fallen under a sessile oak during one season. Acorns were numbered in square quadrats of 0.25 m2; the data set was exhaustive. We drew nine one-start systematic samples from the whole population of quadrats. We computed semivariograms for the whole population and each sample and fitted them to exponential models without nugget. Using geostatistical theoretical results, we calculated a variance of the mean density of acorns by Monte Carlo integration.We show that our variance estimate depends on (1) the origin of the systematic sample, the central sample being the most accurate, (2) quadrat size, with a decrease in the variance when quadrat size increases, (3) the semivariogram model, (4) discretization of the domain used in Monte Carlo integration, and (5) the random number generator. Considering all sources of variation, the variance estimate we calculated ranged from -2 to 36 in our example, for an overall mean equal to 95 acorns per quadrat. Geostatistical variance mainly reflects the locations and size of the sampled quadrats, and the spatial autocorrelation function.In our example, using the variance estimator of a simple random sample leads to a high selection bias. The bias can be neglected only in the absence of significant spatial autocorrelation in the sample. Otherwise, we advocate a geostatistical model-based approach that accounts for spatial autocorrelation.ogists use many designs to select the sample units but the two main approaches are simple random sampling (SRS) and systematic sampling (Southwood 1968, Chessel 1978. In an SRS, each unit is drawn randomly using a random number, but in single-start systematic ...

Estimating areal means and variances of forest attributes using the k-Nearest Neighbors technique and satellite imagery

“…Several aspects of the model-based approach merit consideration. First, the literature pertaining to variance estimation for model-based estimates for regions consisting of multiple pixels is sparse; Gregoire (1998), Aubry and Debouzie (2000), and McRoberts (2006) are among the few references. Second, unlike sample-based approaches, including stratified estimation, the issue of bias may be more difficult to assess for model-based approaches.…”

Two-stage estimation of ungulate abundance in Mediterranean areas using pellet group count

“…Alternatively, two-dimensional systematic sampling (2DSS) represents a straightforward way of achieving spatial balance (e.g. Aubry and Debouzie 2000;D'Orazio 2003). The scheme is based on a regular grid of polygons (the SUs) superimposed onto the study area which is subsequently partitioned into regular sub-regions each containing an equal number of polygons.…”

The Norwegian area frame survey of land cover and outfield land resources

“…Along this line of thought, Matérn (1986) proposes a method where each observation is compared to observations made in its geographical vicinity. Aubry & Debouzie (2000), following such an approach, report that the geostatistical error estimate is a more reliable tool than the simple random sample variance estimate for calculating a confidence interval of the mean because the location and size of the sampling units can be taken into account.…”