By Topic

Crop Acreage Estimation Using a Landsat-Based Estimator as an Auxiliary Variable

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$33 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

3 Author(s)
Raj S. Chhikara ; University of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston, TX 77058 ; James C. Lundgren ; A. Glen Houston

The problem of improving upon the ground survey estimates of crop acreages by utilizing Landsat data is addressed. Three estimators, called regression, ratio, and stratified ratio, are studied. for bias and variance, and their relative efficiencies are compared. The approach is to formulate analytically the estimation problem that utilizes ground survey data, as collected by the U. S. Department of Agriculture ture, and Landsat data, which provide complete coverage for an area of interest, and then to conduct simulation studies. It is shown over a wide range of parametric conditions that the regression estimator is the most efficient unless there is a low correlation between the actual and estimated crop acreages in the sampled area segments, in which case the ratio and stratified ratio estimators are better. Furthermore, it is seen that the regression estimator is potentially biased due to estimating the regression coefficient from the training sample segments. Estimation of the variance of the regression estimator is also investigated. Two variance estimators are considered, the large sample variance estimator and an alternative estimator suggested by Cochran. The large sample estimate of variance is found to be biased and inferior to the Cochran estimate for small sample sizes.

Published in:

IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing  (Volume:GE-24 ,  Issue: 1 )