Advertisement

Mathematical Geology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 407–415 | Cite as

Model-free estimation from spatial samples: A reappraisal of classical sampling theory

  • J. J. de Gruijter
  • C. J. F. ter Braak
Articles

Abstract

A commonly held view among geostatisticians is that classical sampling theory is inapplicable to spatial sampling because spatial data are dependent, whereas classical sampling theory requires them to be independent. By comparing the assumptions and use of classical sampling theory with those of geostatistical theory, we conclude that this view is both false and unfortunate. In particular, estimates of spatial means based on classical sampling designs require fewer assumptions for their validity, and are therefore more robust, than those based on a geostatistical model.

Key words

Fixed population superpopulation design-based inference model-based inference spatial dependence p-unbiasedness sampling strategy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnes, R. J., 1988, Bounding the required sample size for geologic site characterization: Math. Geol., v. 20, p. 477–490.Google Scholar
  2. Cassel, C-M., Särndal, C-E., and Wretman, J. H., 1977, Foundations of inference in survey sampling: Wiley, New York, 192 p.Google Scholar
  3. Chaudhuri, A., and Vos, J. W. E., 1988, Unified theory and strategies of survey sampling: North-Holland, Amsterdam, 414 p.Google Scholar
  4. Cochran, W. G., 1946, Relative accuracy of systematic and stratified random samples for a certain class of populations: Annals of Mathematical Statistics, v. 17, p. 164–177.Google Scholar
  5. Cochran, W. G., 1977, Sampling techniques: Wiley, New York, 428 p.Google Scholar
  6. Corsten, L. C. A., 1989, Interpolation and optimal linear prediction: Statistica Neerlandica, v. 43, p. 69–84.Google Scholar
  7. Dahiya, I. S., Anlauf, R., Kersebaum, K. C., and Richter, J., 1985, Spatial variability of some nutrient constituents of an Alfisol from loess. II. Geostatistical analysis: Z. Pflanzenernaehr. Bodenk., v. 148, p. 268–277.Google Scholar
  8. Das, A. C., 1950, Two-dimensional systematic sampling and the associated stratified and random sampling: Sankhya. v. 10, p. 95–108.Google Scholar
  9. De Gruijter, J. J., and Marsman, B., 1985, Transect sampling for reliable information on mapping units,in D. R. Nielsen and J. Bouma (Eds.), Soil spatial variability: Pudoc, Wageningen, p. 150–165.Google Scholar
  10. Diggle, P. J., and ter Braak, C. J. F., 1982, Point sampling of binary mosaics in ecology,in B. Ranneby (Ed.), Statistics in theory and practice—Essays in honour of Bertil Matérn: Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences, Section of Forest Biometry, S-901 83 Umea, Sweden, p. 107–122.Google Scholar
  11. Journel, A. G., and Huijbregts, Ch. J., 1978, Mining geostatistics: Academic Press, London, 600 p.Google Scholar
  12. Krishnaiah, P. R., and Rao, C. R., 1988, Sampling—Handbook of statistics: v. 6., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 594 p.Google Scholar
  13. Laslet, G. M., and Sandland, R. L., 1989, Precision and accuracy of kriging estimators with interlaboratory trial information,in M. Armstrong (Ed.), Geostatistics, Vol. 2: Kluwer, Dordrecht, p. 797–808.Google Scholar
  14. Matérn, B., 1960, Spatial variation: Medd. Statens Skogsforskningsinst., v. 49, p. 1–144.Google Scholar
  15. Matheron, G., 1971, The theory of regionalized variables and its applications: Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, 211 p.Google Scholar
  16. Myers, D. E., 1989, To be or not to be ... stationary? That is the question: Math. Geol., v. 21, p. 347–362.Google Scholar
  17. Quenouille, M. H., 1949, Problems in plane sampling: Annals of Mathematical Statistics, v. 20, p. 355–375.Google Scholar
  18. Russo, D., and E. Bresler, 1981, Soil hydraulic properties as stochastic processes: I. An analysis of field spatial variability: Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., v. 45, p. 682–687.Google Scholar
  19. Särndal, C-E., 1978, Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling: Scand. J. Statist., v. 5, p. 27–52.Google Scholar
  20. Webster, R., 1977, Quantitative and numerical methods in soil classification and survey: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 269 p.Google Scholar
  21. Yfantis, E. A., Flatman, G. T., and Behar, J. V., 1987, Efficiency of kriging estimates for square, triangular, and hexagonal grids: Math. Geol., v. 19, p. 183–205.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geology 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. J. de Gruijter
    • 1
  • C. J. F. ter Braak
    • 1
  1. 1.Agricultural Mathematics GroupWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations