Using regression models in design‐based estimation of spatial means of soil properties

Abstract

SummaryThe precision of design‐based sampling strategies can be increased by using regression models at the estimation stage. A general regression estimator is given that can be used for a wide variety of models and any well‐defined sampling design. It equals the π estimator plus an adjustment term that accounts for the differences between the π estimators for the spatial means of the auxiliary variables and the true spatial means of these variables. The regression estimator and ratio estimator follow from certain assumptions on the model and the sampling design. These are compared with the π estimator in two case studies.In one study a bivariate field of linearly related variables was simulated and repeatedly sampled by Simple Random Sampling without replacement and sample sizes 10, 25, 50, 100 and 200. For all sample sizes the ratio of the standard error of the simple regression estimator to that of the π estimator was approximately 55%. The bias of the simple regression estimator was negligibly small. The confidence interval estimators were valid for all sample sizes except for n = 10. Also the ratio estimator was approximately unbiased, and the confidence interval estimators were valid for all sample sizes, even for n = 10. This is remarkable because the ratio estimator assumes that the intercept of the regression line is 0 which was incorrect for the simulated field. On the other hand, only approximately 55% of the potential gain was achieved because the model was inappropriate.In a second study the spatial means of the Mean Highest Watertable of map units were estimated by Stratified Simple Random Sampling and the combined (multiple) regression estimator. The NAP elevation, the local elevation, the Easting and the Northing were used as auxiliary variables. For all map units except one the combined (multiple) regression estimator was more precise than the π estimator. The ratio of the standard errors varied from 0.36 to 1.04. The domain for which the regression estimator was less precise than the π estimator showed strong variation between strata. For this domain it was more efficient to group the strata into two groups and to fit simple models for these groups separately.