Co~Jtters & GeotcitncesVol.7, No. 4, pp. 331-334,1981 0098-3004/811040331-4Mf~.

00/0
Printedin Great Britain. © 1981PergamonPress Ltd.

THE DESIGN OF OPTIMAL SAMPLING SCHEMES

FOR LOCAL ESTIMATION AND MAPPING
OF REGIONALIZED VARIABLES--I

THEORY AND METHODt

A. B. MCBRATNEY
Department of Soil Science, University of Aberdeen, Scotland

R. WEBSTER
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England

and

T. M. BURGESS
Department of Agricultural Science, University of Oxford, England

(Received 6 December 1980; revised 13 February 1981)

Abstract--Surveys of materials at the earth's surface, especially soil, can be planned to make the best use of the
resources for survey or to achieve a certain minimum precision provided the nature of spatial dependence is known
already. A method is described for designing optimal sampling schemes. It is based on the theory of regionalized
variables, and assumes that spatial dependence is expressed quantitatively in the form of the semi-variogram. It
assumes also that the maximum standard error of a kriged estimate is a reasonable measure of the goodness of a
sampling scheme. By sampling on a regular triangular grid, the maximum standard error is kept to a minimum for
any given sampling, but a square grid is approximately equivalent where variation is isotropic. Given the
semi-variogram for a variable, the sampling density for any prescribed maximum standard error is determined.
Where variation is geometrically anisotropic, the same method is employed to determine sample spacing in the
direction of maximum change, and the grid mesh elongated in the perpendicular direction in proportion to the
anisotropy ratio.

Key Words: Geostatistics, Kriging, Regionalized variables, Sampling, Soil Survey, Soil Science.

INTRODUCTION reason is economy of effort where only sparse sampling

A frequent task in regional studies of soil, geochemistry
and hydrology is to describe and map one or more
variables over the land surface from sample data. In each
situation, variation is acknowledged, and the aim is to
display this variation and use the knowledge of it to
predict or estimate values at unvisited sites within the
region. However, questions arise as to the precision of
the estimates and to the confidence that can be placed in
such predictions, and to the sampling effort required to
achieve any particular degree of precision.
In geological surveys, information usually derives
from sparse fortuitous exposures of the rock and from
deep borings whose locations are determined logistically.
At best investigators have to be satisfied with a posteriori
estimates of precision from sampling schemes in which
they have had or can have little control. At worst, no
quantitative estimation procedure is possible. Neverthe-
less, by subdividing a region into classes each of which
can be regarded as reasonably homogeneous, the pre-
cision of information from scattered bores and outcrops
can be increased by restricting use to the classes within
which those borings and exposures lie.
The same approach has been adopted for surveys of
soil and other superficial deposits even though these
materials are accessible almost everywhere. Again, the
can be afforded. Here, however, quantitative estimation
is possible with sound sampling, and the classical statis-
tical model has been applied to determine the precision
of estimates and sampling effort in several instances, for
example, Thornburn and Larsen (1959) and Kantey and
Williams (1962) in the civil engineering field, Webster and
Beckett (1968) for general soil survey, and Tidball (1976)
for geochemistry.
The classical model assumes that the value of a vari-
able Z at any place i in class j is the sum of three terms:
z~ = #. + aj + e~j (I)
where/z is the general mean of the variable in the region
as a whole, aj is the difference between the general mean
and the mean of class j, 0.J, and e, is a spatially-uncor-
related component distributed normally with zero mean
and variance cr2. The expected value at any place in the jth
class is tz~, and is estimated from a sample of size nj as
z'J = z~ = - - 2., zkj. (2)
nik=l
The estimate is, of course, subject to error, and has an
estimation variance, (rE2, defined by

tReprints available from Rothamsted Experimental Station. cry: = E I e z , - ~,)2]. (3)

CAGF, O Vol.7, No. 4=--A 33|

332 A.B. McBRATNEY,R. WESSTELand T. M. BURCESS

This is given by z(x) = ~ + e(x), (5)

~r~+= ~ + (r2/n ~ (4)
The estimation variance is thus the sum of the within-
class variance and the estimation variance of the class
mean.
The quantity ~r/X/nj is the familiar standard error.
Using the classical model, it is a simple matter to devise
a sampling scheme to estimate class means for any given
precision if cr is known; nj is chosen large enough to
achieve the desired standard error. However, it is a
different matter when estimating the value of Z at a
particular place. The term affecting precision is pre-
dominantly the within-class variance. It sets a minimum
to the estimation variance which no amount, of sampling
can diminish. For the purpose of prediction using the
classical model, quality of the classification is
paramount, and this must be one of the main reasons for
attention being paid to classification in regional resource
surveys.
If initial classification of a region accounts for all the
where z(x) is the value of Z at place x within a sur-
rounding neighbourhood s, p., is the mean value in that
neighbourhood, and e(x) is a spatially-dependent, random
component with zero mean and variation defined by
Var [e(x)- e(x + h)] = E[{e(x) - e(x + h)2}] = 2y(h).
(6)
The symbol x is used to denote a place in the two-
dimensional plane, so that x = [x~, x2]. The vector h is the
lag, representing the distance and direction separating
pairs of places in this expression. The quantity y(h) is
the semi-variance at that lag, and the function 3,(h) for all
h is the semi-varingram.
The kriged estimate of Z, ~(Xo), at Xo within s is a
weighted average of the observed values, z(x,),
z(x2). . . . . z(x,) in it, thus:
z(~)= ~ X,z(x,). (7)
i--I

spatially-dependent variance, the classical model cannot

be improved. However, in intensive surveys, usually The estimation variance of Z(Xo), or kriging variance, is
there will be substantial spatial dependence within any given by
regional subdivisions. In these circumstances, the clas- n n n
sical model, because it takes no account of spatial cor-
O'K2= 2 ~1 ~'Y(X',Xo)-2 E ~,,~4(X,,Xt), (8)
relation and the positions of sampling sites, is in- -- i--lj--I

adequate. The alternative is to use regionalized variable

theory (Matheron, 1965, 1971), and this the earth scientist
concerned with surface materials is able to do. Since the
land surface is accessible readily, scientists in prin-
ciple can sample to achieve the precision they desire.
To do this they must have prior knowledge of the vari-
ability in the region. Given this knowledge in the form of
a semi-variogram, either inferred from the survey of a
where y(x,,xo) and y(x,,xj) are the semi-variances be-
tween places x, and xo and between x~ and xj, respectively.
The weights, ~,, are chosen so that they sum to 1,
thereby ensuring that the estimate is unbiased, and at the
same time, minimize the estimation variance.
The latter condition obtains when
n

similar neighbouring region or, obtained from recon- ~ Ajy(x,, x~) + O = 7(x,, xo) for all i, (9)
naissance transects across the region, it is possible to
design a sampling scheme that achieves the desired pre- where 0 is the Lagrange parameter associated with the
cision for minimum effort, and is, in this sense, optimal. minimization. Equation (8) thus becomes
This paper outlines the theoretical background, describes
n
the method and provides a general recipe for survey.
~r~ = ~ A,~/(x,,xo) = ¢,. (I0)
Part II presents a FORTRAN program for designing J-I

optimal schemes, and illustrates it with examples

(McBratney and Webster, 1981). Because we are more The coefficients, ~, are obtained by solving the set of
familiar with soil than other materials at the earth's n + ! simultaneous equations (9) written in matrix form
surface and our examples are drawn from soil survey, we as

shall describe the problem in terms of soil, though c= A-Ib, (11)

recognizing that its solution applies equally in other
fields.
~,(x,, x~) ~,(x2, x,) . . . . ~(x., x9
METHOD
where A = i ~ i i
Basis of method ~(x~, x.) ~,(x,, x.) . . . . -~(x., x.)
The method of local estimation provided by regional-
1 .... 1 0
ized variable theory is known as kriging in earth
sciences. The theory is described by Matheron (1965,:
1971); it is summarized and illustrated with examples of F y(x~,
y(x2,
A~

applications by David (1977) and Journel and Huijbregts

b= i ;and c= i (12)
(1978). The model for simple kriging, which we have
discovered to be adequate for soil (Webster and Burgess, LY(~ 2,x° OA"
1980), is
 Design of optimal samplingschemes for local estimation--I
The kriging variance is computed then as
trK2 = bTe. 03)
Equations (8) and (10) define the kriging variance in
those situations where estimates are required for sites of
the same area and shape, that is support, as those on
which the individual observations were made: they refer
specifically to point kriging. In many instances, an esti-
mate will be required over a larger area or block, V. The
kriging variance, ~r:ga, is then
tl
cr~a = , ~ Aiy(x~, V)+ 0a - y(V, V). (14)
The term 7(x,, V) is the average semi-variance between
the observation points and block V, and y(V, V) is the
average semi-variance between points within V, that is,
the within-block variance. The quantity CB is a Lagrange
parameter as before.
Equations (10) and (14) reveal an important feature of
kriging: the estimation variances depend on the semi-
variogram and, through it, on the configuration of
observation points in relation to the point or block to be
estimated and on the distances among them. They do not
depend on the observed values themselves. Thus, if the
semi-variogram is known already then the kriging vari-
ances for any sampling scheme can be determined before
performing the sampling. A prerequisite for this type of
survey is, therefore, a reconaissance from which a semi-
variogram can be estimated. This is achieved by samp-
ling along transects in several directions across the
region, estimating the semi-variances in integer multiples
of the sampling interval, and then, fitting an appropriate
model by a least-squares or maximum-likelihood pro-
cedure.
Sampling pattern
It is evident from equations (8) and (9) that the kriging
variance is not constant from place to place as is the
estimation variance for the classical model. Since soil
semi-variograms are monotonic increasing functions, at
least within the distances for which kriged estimates are
to be required, the kriging variance will tend to increase
as the distance between the interpolated point or block
and the observation points increases. Let this distance he
d. Clearly, d can be shortened to increase the average
precision of estimates. However, the maximum distance,
d .... between an interpolated point and its nearest
sampling point can be minimized for any given sampling
density by sampling on an equilateral triangular grid. For
unit density, dm,x = 0.6304 for points at the centers of
the grid cells, and it is at these points that the kriging
variance is largest. Let this value be o-2g~,ax.Any other
sampling scheme, especially random sampling and other
irregular schemes, will have some larger values of dm~x
and consequently, larger maximum estimation variances.
Nevertheless, a square grid, with dm,x = I/X/2 =0.7071
for unit sampling density, will be generally less precise
than the triangular scheme, and for reasons of con-
venience in indexing, site location and computer hand-
ling, and of shorter travelling distances, actually may be
333
preferred. It is worth noting that Mat~rn (1960) showed
equally conclusively that the equilateral grid is the best
sampling design for estimating me~.n values of variables
within geographic regions.
Optimal sampling
Assuming, for the moment, that variation is isotropic,
the previous description shows that for any sampling
density, and hence cost, the maximum error will be
minimized if sampling is performed on an equilateral
triangular grid, and occurs when estimating values at the
centers of the grid cells. If the cost of survey is limiting,
the estimation variance can be predicted by solving
equation (10). In block kriging, the maximum estimation
variance can occur either when blocks are centered at
the centers of grid cells or when they are centered on
observation points, depending on the size of the blocks
in relation to the grid mesh. Therefore, for block kriging,
equation (14) should be solved for both situations to
identify the best sampling procedure.
If a survey is funded generously, then such sampling
may give more than adequate precision, and, hence,
waste money. Equally, the maximum tolerable estimation
variance may be specified for the survey. In these situa-
tions, the problem is to determine the sampling density
that provides precisely the required precision. This can
he achieved by solving equations (10) or (14), depending
on whether the estimates are required for points or
blocks, for a range of spacings. A graph is then plotted of
2
o,,<m,x against sampling density, and the required density
read from the graph. This defines the sampling scheme
involving least effort or cost, for a given precision, and is
optimal in this sense.
Egect of anisotropy
Equilateral sampling grids are optimal only where
variation is isotropic; modification is needed otherwise.
Our experience to date is that anisotropy in the lateral
plane can be regarded usually as geometric and can be
eliminated by linear transformation of the coordinates.
The transformation for angle 0 is defined by
1"1(0)= {A2 cos2(0 - ~) + B 2 sin2(0 - ~b)}~/2, (15)
where A, B and 4, are parameters of the model (David,
1977). It can be applied to the distance parameter of any
isotropic semi-variogram, for example, to the gradient of
a linear semi-variogram or to the range of a spherical
model, so that the meanings of A, B and ~b depend on
the particular model being employed. Over the first lags,
where the semi-variogram is approximately linear, the
following equation serves:
y(h, 0) = Co + {A2 cos2(0 - ~) + B ~ sin'(0 - 4,)}"21hl, (16)
where h is the lag and 0 is the direction in which the
semi-variance, % is estimated, Co is the nugget variance,
A is the gradient in the direction, O, of maximum slope,
and B is the gradient in the direction perpendicular. The
ratio r = A/B is the anisotropy ratio, expressing the
differing rates of variation in these two directions.
334 A. B. McBRATNEY,R. WESSTER,and T. M. BURGESS
Where such an anisotropy is shown to be present, the
sampling grid should be aligned in directions ~ and
d, + ~r/2 with spacings in the ratio r with the smaller
spacing in direction d', the direction of maximum rate of
variation. An optimal sampling scheme can be obtained
using the method described in the previous section by
finding the maximum grid spacing for a given O":Kmax in
direction ~. The grid spacing for direction ~ + w/2 is,
then, r times the spacing for direction ~. A further
implication of anisotropy, in terms of an overall sampling
strategy, is that during the reconnaissance stage three or
more directions must be studied in order to discover
whether or not the semi-variogram shows geometric
anisotropy.
Changing variance
Finally, in this section we should point out that sur-
veyors should look for any substantial differences in the
patterns of variation from one part of a region to ano-
ther. If different parts of a region have different semi-
variograms, then different optimal strategies will apply to
them. Surveyors may choose to compromise, perhaps by
oversampling in some parts. If the differences are large,
however, then it may pay to adopt different strategies on
nonconformant grids with different spacings or orien-
tations or both. This will be inconvenient, and surveyors
must judge whether the benefits of optimal sampling are
worth the inconvenience.
RECIPE FOR AN OPTIMAL SAMPLING STRATEGY
To summarize the method described and place it in the
context of an overall scheme, the following recipe for
sampling is suggested. The strategy consists of decisions
(D), computations (C), and field-work (F).
D! Choose the maximum error allowed ~K~,ax and
block size.
D2 Decide the level of presurvey information
required.
(a) If the semi-variogram is known or can be infer-
red, then go to C3.
(b) If the scale of variation is known or can be
inferred, then go to D3.
(c) Else, nothing is known or can be inferred about
the variable in the region of interest and the
scale of variation first should be obtained using
FI and CI.
FI Obtain the scale of variation using a nested
design (Youden and Mehlich, 1937).
C I Calculate nondirectional semi-variograms for
nested design (Miesch, 1975).
D3 Choose transect sample interval from nondirec-
tional semi-variogram and preset ~ ....
remembering that this sample interval should be
considerably less than the final grid spacing to
obtain a useful experimental semi-variogram.
F2 Sample transects in 3 or more directions with
randomly-located starting points.
C2 Calculate experimental semi-variograms and fit a
model.
C3 Obtain grid spacing a for direction of maximum
variation d~ using the method described previously
for both triangular and square grids. The grid
spacing in direction ,b + Ir/2 is ra, where r is the
anisotropy ratio. If the semi-variogram is isotropic,
the grid can be oriented in an~/ direction and the
grid spacings are equal in both directions.
IM Choose to sample on a triangular or square grid.
Only in exceptional circumstances will the
efficiency advantage of the triangular grid out-
weight the inconveniences of extra travelling, site
location and computer handling.
F3 Sample on grid in direction ~ rad with spacing a
and d, + ¢r/2 rad with spacing ra.
AcknowledgmentsbWe should like to thank the Natural
Environment Research Council and the Department of Agricul-
ture and Fisheries for Scotland for the award of studentships to
T. M. Burgess and A. B. McBratney, respectively.
REFERENCF~
David, M., 1977, Geostatistical ore reserve estimation: Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 364 p.
Journel, A. G., and Huijbregts, C. J., 1978, Mining geostatistics:
Academic Press, London, 600 p.
Kantey. B. A., and Williams, A. A. B., 1962. The use of soil
engineering maps for road projects: Trans. South African Inst,
Civil Engngs., v. 4, no. 8, p. 149-159.
McBramey, A. B., and Webster, R., 1981, The design of optimal
sampling schemes for local estimation and mapping of
regionalized variables. Part II. Program and examples: Com-
puters & Geosciences, v. 7, no. 4, p. 335-365.
Mat6rn, B., 1960, Spatial variation: Meddelanden fr~n Statens
Skogforskningsinstitut, v. 49, no. 5, 144 p.
Matheron, G., 1965, Les variables r~gionalis6es et leur estima-
tion: Masson, Paris, 305 p.
Matheron. G., 1971, The theory of regionalized variables and its
applications: Les Cahiers du Centre de Morphologie Math~m-
atique, no. 5, Centre de G6ostatistique, Fontainebleau, 211 p.
Miesch, A. T., 1975, Variograms and variance components in
geochemistry and ore evaluation, in Whitten, E. H. T.. ed.,
Quantitative studies in the geological sciences: Geol. Soc.
America. Mem. 142, p. 333-340.
Thornburn, T. H., and Larsen, W. R., 1959, A statistical study of
soil sampling: Jour. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engngs., v. 85, n. SM5, p. 1-13.
Tidball, R. R., 1976, Chemical variation of soils in Missouri
associated with selected levels of the soil classification system:
U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 954-B, 16 p.
Webster. R., and Beckett, P. H. T., 1968, Quality and usefulness
of soil maps: Nature v. 219, no. 5755, p. 680-682.
Webster, R., and Burgess, T. M., 1980, Optimal interpolation and
isarithmic mapping of soil properties. 111. Changing drift and
universal kriging: Jour. Soil Science, v. 31, no. 3, p. 505-524.
Youden. W. J., and Mehlich, A., 1937, Selection of efficient
methods for soil sampling: Contr. Boyce Thompson inst. Plant
Res., v. 9, p. 59-70.