Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 413–436 | Cite as

A framework for adapting survey design through time for wildlife population assessment

  • Fiona M. UnderwoodEmail author


Sampling strategies for monitoring the status and trends in wildlife populations are often determined before the first survey is undertaken. However, there may be little information about the distribution of the population and so the sample design may be inefficient. Through time, as data are collected, more information about the distribution of animals in the survey region is obtained but it can be difficult to incorporate this information in the survey design. This paper introduces a framework for monitoring motile wildlife populations within which the design of future surveys can be adapted using data from past surveys whilst ensuring consistency in design-based estimates of status and trends through time. In each survey, part of the sample is selected from the previous survey sample using simple random sampling. The rest is selected with inclusion probability proportional to predicted abundance. Abundance is predicted using a model constructed from previous survey data and covariates for the whole survey region. Unbiased design-based estimators of status and trends and their variances are derived from two-phase sampling theory. Simulations over the short and long-term indicate that in general more precise estimates of status and trends are obtained using this mixed strategy than a strategy in which all of the sample is retained or all selected with probability proportional to predicted abundance. Furthermore the mixed strategy is robust to poor predictions of abundance. Estimates of status are more precise than those obtained from a rotating panel design.


Adaptive sampling Design-based estimation Monitoring strategies Wildlife population assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10651_2012_193_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (51 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 51 kb)


  1. Binder DA, Hidiroglou MA (1988) Sampling in time. In: Handbook of Statistics, vol 6. Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland, pp 187–211Google Scholar
  2. Brewer KRW, Hanif M (1982) Sampling with unequal probabilities. Lecture notes in statistics, vol 15. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JA, Salehi MM, Moradi M, Bell G, Smith DR (2008) . Popul Ecol 50: 239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckland ST, Elston DA (1993) Empirical models for the spatial distribution of wildlife. J Appl Ecol 30: 478–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chao MT (1982) A general purpose unequal probability sampling plan. Biometrika 69(3): 653–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dufour J, Gambino J, Kennedy B, Lindeyer J, Singh MP (1998) Methodology of the Canadian labour force survey. Tech. rep. 71-526-XPB, Statistics CanadaGoogle Scholar
  7. Duncan GJ, Kalton G (1987) Issues of design and analysis of surveys. Int Stat Rev 55(1): 97–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haines DE, Pollock KH (1998) Estimating the number of active and successful bald eagle nests: an application of the dual frame method. Environ Ecol Stat 5: 245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen MH, Madow WG, Tepping BJ (1983) An evaluation of model-dependent and probability-sampling inferences in sample surveys. J Am Stat Assoc 78(384): 776–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holmes DJ, Skinner CJ (2000) Variance estimation for labour force survey estimates of level and change. UK Government Statistical Service Methodology Series No. 21Google Scholar
  11. Horvitz D, Thompson DJ (1952) A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J Am Stat Assoc 47: 663–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jessen RJ (1942) Statistical investigation of a farm survey for obtaining farm facts. Iowa Agric Stn Res Bull 304: 54–59Google Scholar
  13. Jolly GM, Hampton I (1990) A stratified random transect design for acoustic surveys of fish stocks. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47: 1282–1291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khaemba WM, Stein A (2000) Use of GIS for a spatial and temporal analysis of Kenyan wildlife with generalised linear modelling. Int J Geograph Inform Sci 14(8): 833–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Opsomer JD, Botts C, Kim JY (2003) Small area estimation in a watershed erosion assessment survey. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 8(2): 139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Overton WS, Stehman SV (1996) Desirable design characteristics for long-term monitoring of ecological variables. Environ Ecol Stat 3: 349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Overton WS, White D, Stevens DL Jr (1990) Design report for EMAP. Environmental monitoring and assessment program. EPA/600/3-91/053, US Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  19. Särndal CE, Swennsson B, Wretman J (1992) Model assisted survey sampling. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sen AR (1973) Theory and applications of sampling on repeated occasions with several auxiliary variables. Biometrics 29(2):381–385Google Scholar
  21. Skalski JR (1990) A design for long-term status and trends monitoring. J Environ Manag 30: 139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sunter A (1977) List sequential sampling with equal or unequal probabilities without replacement. Appl Stat 26: 261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sunter A (1977) Response burden, sample rotation, and classification renewal in economic surveys. Int Stat Rev 45: 209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thompson SK, Seber GAF (1996) Adaptive sampling. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Tillé Y (2006) Sampling algorithms. Springer series in statistics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Venables W, Ripley B (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRCGoogle Scholar
  28. Yates F, Grundy PM (1953) Selection without replacement from within strata with probability proportional to size. J Royal Stat Soc B 15: 235–261Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations