Comparing the Thiessen’s Method against simpler alternatives using Monte Carlo Simulation

Estimating the expected value of a function over geographic areas is problem with a long history. In the beginning of the XX-th century the most common method was just the arithmetic mean of the field measurements ignoring data location. In 1911, Thiessen introduced a new weighting procedure measur...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Marcelo Guelfi, Carlos López-Vazquez
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Instituto Panamericano de Geografía e Historia 2018-04-01
Series:Revista Cartográfica
Subjects:
Online Access:https://revistasipgh.org/index.php/rcar/article/view/191
id doaj-f59d3bd1f69b4c4f93c5cc903b0cb3e3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f59d3bd1f69b4c4f93c5cc903b0cb3e32021-07-01T00:29:53ZengInstituto Panamericano de Geografía e HistoriaRevista Cartográfica0080-20852663-39812018-04-019610.35424/rcarto.i96.191Comparing the Thiessen’s Method against simpler alternatives using Monte Carlo SimulationMarcelo GuelfiCarlos López-Vazquez Estimating the expected value of a function over geographic areas is problem with a long history. In the beginning of the XX-th century the most common method was just the arithmetic mean of the field measurements ignoring data location. In 1911, Thiessen introduced a new weighting procedure measuring influence through an area and thus indirectly considering closeness between them. In another context, Quenouville created in 1949 the jackknife method which is used to estimate the bias and the standard deviation. In 1979 Efron invented the bootstrap method which, among other things, is useful to estimate the expected value and the confidence interval (CI) from a population. Although the Thiessen’s method has been used for more than 100 years, we were unable to find systematic analysis comparing its efficiency against the simple mean, or even to more recent methods like jackknife or boostrap. In this work we compared four methods to estimate de expected value.  Sample mean, Thiessen, the so called here jackknifed Thiessen and bootstrap. All of them are feasible for routine use in a network of fixed locations. The comparison was made using the Friedman’s Test after a Monte Carlo simulation. Two cases were taken for study: one analytic with three arbitrary functions and the other using experimental data from daily rain measured with a satellite. The results show that Thiessen’s method is the best estimator in almost all the cases with a 95% of confidence interval. Unlike the others, the last two considered methods supply a suitable CI, but the one obtained through jackknifed Thiessen was even more accurate, opening the door for future work. https://revistasipgh.org/index.php/rcar/article/view/191ThiessenMonte Carlobootstrapjackknife
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Marcelo Guelfi
Carlos López-Vazquez
spellingShingle Marcelo Guelfi
Carlos López-Vazquez
Comparing the Thiessen’s Method against simpler alternatives using Monte Carlo Simulation
Revista Cartográfica
Thiessen
Monte Carlo
bootstrap
jackknife
author_facet Marcelo Guelfi
Carlos López-Vazquez
author_sort Marcelo Guelfi
title Comparing the Thiessen’s Method against simpler alternatives using Monte Carlo Simulation
title_short Comparing the Thiessen’s Method against simpler alternatives using Monte Carlo Simulation
title_full Comparing the Thiessen’s Method against simpler alternatives using Monte Carlo Simulation
title_fullStr Comparing the Thiessen’s Method against simpler alternatives using Monte Carlo Simulation
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the Thiessen’s Method against simpler alternatives using Monte Carlo Simulation
title_sort comparing the thiessen’s method against simpler alternatives using monte carlo simulation
publisher Instituto Panamericano de Geografía e Historia
series Revista Cartográfica
issn 0080-2085
2663-3981
publishDate 2018-04-01
description Estimating the expected value of a function over geographic areas is problem with a long history. In the beginning of the XX-th century the most common method was just the arithmetic mean of the field measurements ignoring data location. In 1911, Thiessen introduced a new weighting procedure measuring influence through an area and thus indirectly considering closeness between them. In another context, Quenouville created in 1949 the jackknife method which is used to estimate the bias and the standard deviation. In 1979 Efron invented the bootstrap method which, among other things, is useful to estimate the expected value and the confidence interval (CI) from a population. Although the Thiessen’s method has been used for more than 100 years, we were unable to find systematic analysis comparing its efficiency against the simple mean, or even to more recent methods like jackknife or boostrap. In this work we compared four methods to estimate de expected value.  Sample mean, Thiessen, the so called here jackknifed Thiessen and bootstrap. All of them are feasible for routine use in a network of fixed locations. The comparison was made using the Friedman’s Test after a Monte Carlo simulation. Two cases were taken for study: one analytic with three arbitrary functions and the other using experimental data from daily rain measured with a satellite. The results show that Thiessen’s method is the best estimator in almost all the cases with a 95% of confidence interval. Unlike the others, the last two considered methods supply a suitable CI, but the one obtained through jackknifed Thiessen was even more accurate, opening the door for future work.
topic Thiessen
Monte Carlo
bootstrap
jackknife
url https://revistasipgh.org/index.php/rcar/article/view/191
work_keys_str_mv AT marceloguelfi comparingthethiessensmethodagainstsimpleralternativesusingmontecarlosimulation
AT carloslopezvazquez comparingthethiessensmethodagainstsimpleralternativesusingmontecarlosimulation
_version_ 1721348452818878464