Advertisement

Spatial Structures of Site Characteristics and Composite Sampling

  • Ganapati P. PatilEmail author
  • Sharad D. Gore
  • Charles Taillie*
Chapter
  • 892 Downloads
Part of the Environmental and Ecological Statistics book series (ENES, volume 4)

Abstract

Environmental samples are most often collected at sites and therefore cannot be considered stochastically independent of one another. There is a common underlying contamination diffusion process that affects all samples, possibly in varying degrees. As a consequence, the samples collected at a particular site can be viewed as a realization of the corresponding spatial point process. It is then obvious that a statistical analysis of such data involves not only the overall population mean and variance but also parameters of the spatial process such as components of the variability of the process, spatial autocorrelation among sampling locations. In particular, the interest is in the trend, which corresponds to the expectation of the process, and spatial autocorrelation, which is usually characterized by the variogram, semivariogram, or covariogram. There is also an interest in identifying the components of variability, especially the scale of variability in comparison with the scale of sampling, which is measured in terms of the distance between successive sampling locations.

Keywords

Mean Square Error Composite Sample Nugget Variance Resampled Point Retest Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Armstrong, M. (1984). Problems with universal kriging. Math. Geol. 16:101–108.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolgiano, N. C., Boswell, M. T., Patil, G. P., and Taillie, C. (1989). Evaluation of the kriging model for abundance estimation of marine organisms. Technical Report Number 89–0601. Center fpr Statistical Ecology and Environmental Statistics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802.Google Scholar
  3. Bolgiano, N. C., Patil, G. P., and Taillie, C. (1990). Spatial statistics, composite sampling, and related issues in site characterization with two examples. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Superfund Hazardous Waste: Statistical Issues in Characterizing a Site: Protocols, Tools, and Research Needs, H. Lacayo, R. J. Nadeau, G. P. Patil, and L. Zaragoza, eds. USEPA Statistical Policy Branch, Washington DC. pp. 79–114.Google Scholar
  4. Carra, J. S. (1984). Lead levels in blood of children around smelter sites in Dallas. In Environmental Sampling for Hazardous Wastes, G. E. Schweitzer and J. A. Santolucito, eds. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. pp. 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cressie, N. (1988). Spatial prediction and ordinary kriging. Math. Geol. 20:405–421.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Cressie, N. (1989). Geostatistics. American Statistician 43:197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dell, T. R. (1969). The theory and some applications of ranked set sampling. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Statistics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  8. Dell, T. R. and Clutter, J. L. (1972). Ranked set sampling theory with order statistics background. Biometrics 28:545–553.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dierckx, P. (1981). An algorithm for surface-fitting with spline functions. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 1:267–283.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorfman, R. (1943). The detection of defective members of large populations. Ann. Math. Stat. 14:436–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flatman, G. T. (1984). Using geostatistics in assessing lead contamination near smelters. In Environmental Sampling for Hazardous Wastes, G. E. Schweitzer and J. A. Santolucito, eds. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Flatman, G. T., Englund, E. J., and Yfantis, A. A. (1988). Geostatistical approaches to the design of sampling regimes. In Principles of Environmental Sampling, L. H. Keith, ed. American Chemical Society. Washington, DC. pp. 73–83.Google Scholar
  13. Gensheimer, G. J., Tucker, W. A., and Denahan, S. A. (1986). Cost-effective soil sampling strategies to determine amount of soils requiring remediation. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials, March 4–6, 1986, Atlanta, GA. pp. 76–79.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, R. O. (1987). Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Gill, A. and Gottlieb, D. (1974). The identification of a set by successive intersections. Info. Control 24:20–35.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Gore, S. D., Patil, G. P., and Taillie, C. (1992). Studies on the applications of composite sample techniques in hazardous waste site characterization and evaluation: II. Onsite surface soil sampling for PCB at the Armagh Site. 92–0305.Google Scholar
  17. Halls, L. K. and Dell, T. R. (1966). Trial of ranked set sampling for forage yields. J. For. Sci. 12:22–26.Google Scholar
  18. Hwang, F. K. (1984). Robust group testing. J. Qual. Tech. 16:189–195.Google Scholar
  19. Isaaks, E. H. (1984). Risk Qualified Mappings for Hazardous Waste Sites: A Case Study in Distribution Free Geostatistics. M.S. Thesis, Department of Applied Earth Sciences, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  20. Journel, A. G. and Huijbregts, C. J. (1978). Mining Geostatistics. Academic, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  21. Lehmann, E. L. (1990). Model specification: The views of Fisher and Neyman, and later developments. Stat. Sci. 5:160–168.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. McIntyre, G. A. (1952). A method for unbiased selective sampling, using ranked sets. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 3:385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Patil, G. P., Sinha, A. K., and Taillie, C. (1992). Ranked set sampling from a finite population in the presence of a trend on a site. 91–1204 To appear in Journal of Applied Statistical Science.Google Scholar
  24. Provost, L. P. (1984). Statistical methods in environmental sampling. In Environmental Sampling for Hazardous Wastes, G. E. Schweitzer and J. A. Santolucito, eds. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. pp. 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Starks, T. H. (1986). Determination of support in soil sampling. Math. Geol. 18:529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Starks, T. H., Sparks, A. R., and Brown, K. W. (1987). Geostatistical analysis of Palmerton soil survey data. Environ. Monit. Assess. 9:239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sterrett, A. (1957). On the detection of defective members of large populations. Ann. Math. Stat. 28:1033–1036.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stokes, S. L. and Sager, T. (1988). Characterization of a ranked set sample with application to estimating distribution functions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83:374–381.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Takahasi, K. and Wakimoto, K. (1968). On unbiased estimates of the population mean based on the sample stratified by means of ordering. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 20:1–31.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilding, L. P. and Drees, L. R. (1983). Spatial variability and pedology. In Pedogenesis and Soil Taxonomy, I: Concepts and Interactions, L. P. Wilding, N. E. Smeck, and G. F. Hall, eds. Elsevier, New York, NY. pp. 83–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yfantis, E. A., Flatman, G. T., and Behar, J. V. (1987). Efficiency of kriging estimation for square, triangular, and hexagonal grids. Math. Geol. 19:183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ganapati P. Patil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sharad D. Gore
    • 2
  • Charles Taillie*
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Statistical Ecology and Environmental StatisticsPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of PunePuneIndia
  3. 3.Center for Statistical Ecology and Environmental StatisticsPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations