Abstract
The publication of official statistics at different levels of aggregation requires a benchmarking step. Difficulties arise when a benchmarking method needs to be applied to a triplet of related estimates, at multiple stages of aggregation. For ratios of totals, external benchmarking constraints for the triplet (numerator, denominator, ratio) are that the weighted sum of denominator/numerator/ratio estimates equals to a constant. The benchmarking weight, applied to the ratio estimates, is a function of the denominator estimates. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service’s county-level, end-of-season acreage, production and yield estimates need to aggregate to the corresponding agricultural statistics district-level estimates, which also need to aggregate to the corresponding prepublished state-level values. Moreover, the definition of yield, as the ratio of production to harvested acreage, needs to hold at the county level, the agricultural statistics district level and the state level. We discuss different methods of applying benchmarking constraints to a triplet (numerator, denominator, ratio), at multiple stages of aggregation, where the denominator and the ratio are modeled and the numerator is derived. County-level and agricultural statistics district-level, end-of-season acreage, production and yield estimates are constructed and compared using the different methods. Results are illustrated for 2014 corn and soybean in Indiana, Iowa and Illinois.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berg E, Cecere W, Ghosh M (2014) Small area estimation for county-level farmland cash rental rates. J Surv Stat Methodol 2:1–37
Cruze NB, Erciulescu AL, Nandram B, Barboza WJ, Young LJ (2016) Developments in model-based estimation of county-level agricultural estimates. In: ICES V proceedings. American Statistical Association, Alexandria
Erciulescu AL, Cruze NB, Nandram B (2018) Model-based county-level crop estimates incorporating auxiliary sources of information. J R Stat Soc Ser A. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12390
Gelman A, Rubin DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 7:457–511
Geweke J (1992) Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior moments. In: Bernardo JM, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Smith AFM (eds) Bayesian statistics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 4
Ghosh M, Steorts RC (2013) Two-stage benchmarking as applied to small area estimation. TEST: Off J Span Soc Stat Oper Res 22(4):668–670
Johnson D (2014) An assessment of pre- and within-season remotely sensed variables for forecasting corn and soybean yields in the United States. Remote Sens Environ 141:116–128
Kott P (1989) Mathematical formulae for the 1989 survey processing system (SPS) summary, p 26. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Education_and_Outreach/Reports,_Presentations_and_Conferences/Survey_Reports/Mathematical%20Formulae%20for%20the%201989%20Survey%20Processing%20System%20(SPS)%20Summary.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
Nandram B, Berg E, Barboza W (2014) A hierarchical Bayesian model for forecasting state-level corn yield. Environ Ecol Stat 21(3):507–530
Nandram B, Erciulescu AL, Cruze N (2018) Bayesian benchmarking of the Fay-Herriot model using random deletion. Surv Methodol (in press)
Pfeffermann D, Barnard C (1991) Some new estimators for small area means with application to the assessment of farmland values. J Bus Econ Stat 9:31–42
Rao JNK, Molina I (2015) Small area estimation. Wiley, Hoboken
USDA NASS (2010) Field crops. Usual planting and harvesting dates. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/planting/planting-10-29-2010.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
USDA NASS (2018) QuickStats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
Wang J, Fuller W, Qu Y (2008) Small area estimation under a restriction. Surv Methodol 34:29–36
Acknowledgements
The findings and conclusions in this preliminary publication have not been formally disseminated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy. This research was supported in part by the intramural research program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Dr. Nandram’s work was supported by a Grant from the Simons Foundation (#353953, Balgobin Nandram). The authors thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. The authors are grateful to Wendy Barboza, Valbona Bejleri, Dave Johnson and Linda Young from the National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handling Editor: Pierre Dutilleul.
Appendices
Appendix A
A1. Fixed benchmarking weights
For a ratio benchmarking adjustment, the R11 subarea-level numerator estimates satisfy the benchmarking constraint. The proof is as follows
Similarly, the R11 area-level numerator estimates satisfy the benchmarking constraints. The proof follows immediately,
The ratio estimator for the set of all subareas is the weighted sum of the subarea-level ratio estimators,
A2. Random benchmarking weights
Note that, from the derivation of production total estimates, the benchmarking weights for the two totals are equal. Hence, \(w_j^{T1} = w_j^{T2} = w_{jk}^{T2},\) for all \(k=1,\ldots ,K\).
For a ratio benchmarking adjustment, the R12 subarea-level numerator estimates satisfy the benchmarking constraint. The proof is as follows
The ratio estimator for the set of all subareas is the weighted sum of the subarea-level ratio estimators,
The subarea-level numerator total estimator is
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erciulescu, A.L., Cruze, N.B. & Nandram, B. Benchmarking a triplet of official estimates. Environ Ecol Stat 25, 523–547 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-018-0416-4
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-018-0416-4