Advertisement

Comparison of survey estimates of the finite population variance

  • Jean-Yves P. CourboisEmail author
  • N. Scott Urquhart
Article

Abstract

The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has conducted several probability surveys of aquatic resources. Such surveys usually have unequal probability of including population elements in the sample. The Northeast lakes survey, which motivated this study of variance estimation, was such a survey. We examine ten estimators for the finite population variance using a Monte Carlo factorial experiment that considers three population characteristics. The results show that the correlation between the inclusion probabilities and the response is the most important factor that differentiates the estimators. Under conditions of low correlation (approximately <0.4), a common feature in environmental surveys, the sample variance is best, elsewhere, two ratio estimators, one based on consistency and the Horvitz-Thompson Theorem (HT) and the other based on the Yates-Grundy form, behave similarly and best.

Key Words

Finite population sampling Horvitz-Thompson estimation Unequal probability sampling 

References

  1. Akima, H. (1978), “A Method of Bivariate Interpolation and Smooth Surface Fitting for Irregularly Distributed Data Points,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 4, 148–159.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewer, K., and Hanif, M. (1983), Sampling With Unequal Probabilities, New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Cochran, W. G. (1977), Sampling Techniques (3rd Ed), New York: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Dol, W., Steerneman, T., and Wansbeek, T. (1996), “Matrix Algebra and Sampling Theory: The Case of the Horvitz-Thompson Estimator,” Linear Algebra and its Applications, 237, 225–238.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Hartley, H., and Rao, J. (1962), “Sampling With Unequal Probability and Without Replacement,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33, 350–374.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Hidiriglou, M., and Gray, G. (1980), “Construction of Joint Probability of Selection for Systematics p.p.s Sampling,” Applied Statistics, 29, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Horvitz, D., and Thompson, D. (1952), “A Generalization of Sampling Without Replacement from a Finite Universe,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 663–685.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Larsen, D., and Christie, S. (1993), “EMAP-Surface Waters 1991 Pilot Report, Technical Report EPA/620/R-93/003,” Technical Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Larsen, D., Thorton, K., Urquhart, N., and Paulsen, S. (1995), “The Role of Sample Surveys for Monitoring the Condition of the Nation’s Lakes,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 32, 101–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu, T., and Thompson, M. (1983), “Properties of Estimators of Quadratic Finite Population Functions: The Batch Approach,” The Annals of Statistics, 11, 275–285.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. McDonald, T. (1996), “Analysis of Finite Population Surveys: Sample Size and Testing Considerations,” Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  12. Mitch, M., Kaufmann, P., Herlihy, A., Overton, W., and Sale, M. (1990), “National Stream Survey Database Guide. EPN600/8-90/055,” Technical Report, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis; Oregon.Google Scholar
  13. Royall, R., and Cumberland, W. (1981), “An Empirical Study of the Ratio Estimator and Estimators of its Variance,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 66–88.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Särndal, C.-E., Swensson, B., and Wretman, J. (1992), Model Assisted Survey Sampling, New York: Springer-Verlag.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Stehman, S., and Overton, W. (1989), “Pairwise Inclusion Probability Formulas in Random-Order, Variable Probability, Systematic Sampling,” Technical Report 131, Oregon State University Department of Statistics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
  16. — (1994a), “Comparison of Variance Estimators of the Horvitz-Thompson Estimator for Randomized Variable Probability Systematic Sampling,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 30–43.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. — (1994b), “Environmental Sampling and Monitoring,” in Handbook of Statistics, eds. G. Patil and C. Rao, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  18. Stevens, D. (1994), “Variable Density Grid-Based Sampling Designs for Continuous Spatial Populations,” Environmetrics, 8, 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thompson, S. K. (1992), Sampling, New York: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Urquhart, N., Paulsen, S., and Larsen, D. (1998), “Monitoring for Policy-Relevant Regional Trends Over Time,” Ecological Applications, 8, 246–257.Google Scholar
  21. Yates, F., and Grundy, P. (1953), “Selection Without Replacement from Within Strata with Probability Proportional to Size,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 15, 253–261.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Statistics DepartmentUniversity of WashingtonSeattle
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsColorado State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations