Re: AI-GEOSTATS: Hypothesis Testing in a Spatial Framework

Expand Messages
• Warren We have had some success with a sort of hypothesis test in this regard. I had a task some years back to prove that the first area mined in a deposit was
Message 1 of 3 , Dec 20, 2003
Warren

We have had some success with a sort of hypothesis
test in this regard. I had a task some years back to
prove that the first area mined in a deposit was not
significantly lower than could be expected by chance
selection.

We used a combination between 'between block variance'
and a sort of cutoff analysis. It helps if your
samples have a simple distribution like Normal or
lognormal. Basically, you work out the probability
that a block of a certain size would have a value that
low (in our case). It is, effectively, a simple
application of volume/variance. Chapter 3 in my 'old'
http://uk.geocities.com/practica.htm

Isobel

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"

--
* To post a message to the list, send it to ai-geostats@...
* As a general service to the users, please remember to post a summary of any useful responses to your questions.
* To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@... with no subject and "unsubscribe ai-geostats" followed by "end" on the next line in the message body. DO NOT SEND Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list
* Support to the list is provided at http://www.ai-geostats.org
• ... The issues you raise occur also in classical agricultural field trials, and you might like to consider using classical field experiment techniques. For
Message 2 of 3 , Dec 20, 2003
On 19-Dec-03 Warren Schlechte wrote:
> I would like some references for the following type design.
>
> Consider an area, much of which will not be treated. However,
> small sections will be treated, and if the treatment works, the
> density of an organism will be lessened. The basic question is
> "What is the likelihood that the low-density areas would have
> happened by chance, in the absence of the treatment?" If this
> likelihood is very small, then we could suggest the treatment
> is the reason we have lower densities in these areas. Note,
> there could be a gradient with edge effects.
>
> How would one go about making a decision rule for testing whether
> the treatment was effective?
>
> My guess is that the non-treated areas will be quite patchy.
> Our hope is that in the treated areas, if the organism isn't
> completely eliminated, the density will be considerably less.
> [...]
> Warren Schlechte
> HOH Fisheries Science Center

The issues you raise occur also in classical agricultural field
trials, and you might like to consider using classical field
experiment techniques.

For instance, you could select a set of what you call "sections"
as "plots", and randomly allocate half the plots to treatment/control.
Then, if you are mainly interested in a "hypothesis-test" type of
inference (which your statement suggests is the case), the randomisation
distribution of treatment/control comparison would give you a valid
result. If you can select well-separated "plots" so that they do not
interfere with each other, this may be all you need.

more sensitive by identifying strata to use as "blocks", within
each of which you expect to find less variation due to this cause.
Then you randomise on "plots" chosen within each "block", and again
make use of the appropriate randomisation distribution.

However, if you need to make a more "quantitative" inference,
such as producing estimates with confidence intervals (or even
merely doing a "t" or "F" test), then you may need to take account
of possible spatio/temporal correlations on order to estimate the
variances of your estimates, and this is not so easy. Again, there
experimentation.

Given where you are writing from, it seems you may be looking
at bodies of water. You do not say whether these are rivers/canals
(approximately linear structures), or lakes or seas (2, or even 3,
dimensional). This would affect the type of layout you would
choose.

In canals or lakes, the water may be relatively static, so the
"treatment" is more likely to remain within the "plot", while in
rivers or seas, the presence of currents may disperse it.
The latter complication, as a serious issue, is rare in agricultural
experiments. However, it may perhaps mainly influence your choice of
procedure for measuring the concentration of the organism, though it
could also severely complicate your estimation of variability.

You do not say what the "treatment" is, by the way.

I hope these thoughts help a bit.
Best wishes,
Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@...>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972
Date: 20-Dec-03 Time: 16:33:43
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------

--
* To post a message to the list, send it to ai-geostats@...
* As a general service to the users, please remember to post a summary of any useful responses to your questions.
* To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@... with no subject and "unsubscribe ai-geostats" followed by "end" on the next line in the message body. DO NOT SEND Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list
* Support to the list is provided at http://www.ai-geostats.org
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.