Open Access
Issue
Published:
24 September 2020
Comparison of the local pivotal method and systematic sampling for national forest inventories
(
),
Download citation
342
Views
6
Downloads
10
Crossref
N/A
WoS
8
Scopus
0
CSCD
The local pivotal method (LPM) utilizing auxiliary data in sample selection has recently been proposed as a sampling method for national forest inventories (NFIs). Its performance compared to simple random sampling (SRS) and LPM with geographical coordinates has produced promising results in simulation studies. In this simulation study we compared all these sampling methods to systematic sampling. The LPM samples were selected solely using the coordinates (LPMxy) or, in addition to that, auxiliary remote sensing-based forest variables (RS variables). We utilized field measurement data (NFI-field) and Multi-Source NFI (MS-NFI) maps as target data, and independent MS-NFI maps as auxiliary data. The designs were compared using relative efficiency (RE); a ratio of mean squared errors of the reference sampling design against the studied design. Applying a method in NFI also requires a proven estimator for the variance. Therefore, three different variance estimators were evaluated against the empirical variance of replications: 1) an estimator corresponding to SRS; 2) a Grafström-Schelin estimator repurposed for LPM; and 3) a Matérn estimator applied in the Finnish NFI for systematic sampling design.
The LPMxy was nearly comparable with the systematic design for the most target variables. The REs of the LPM designs utilizing auxiliary data compared to the systematic design varied between 0.74–1.18, according to the studied target variable. The SRS estimator for variance was expectedly the most biased and conservative estimator. Similarly, the Grafström-Schelin estimator gave overestimates in the case of LPMxy. When the RS variables were utilized as auxiliary data, the Grafström-Schelin estimates tended to underestimate the empirical variance. In systematic sampling the Matérn and Grafström-Schelin estimators performed for practical purposes equally.
LPM optimized for a specific variable tended to be more efficient than systematic sampling, but all of the considered LPM designs were less efficient than the systematic sampling design for some target variables. The Grafström-Schelin estimator could be used as such with LPMxy or instead of the Matérn estimator in systematic sampling. Further studies of the variance estimators are needed if other auxiliary variables are to be used in LPM.
menu
Comparison of the local pivotal method and systematic sampling for national forest inventories
(
),
Abstract
The local pivotal method (LPM) utilizing auxiliary data in sample selection has recently been proposed as a sampling method for national forest inventories (NFIs). Its performance compared to simple random sampling (SRS) and LPM with geographical coordinates has produced promising results in simulation studies. In this simulation study we compared all these sampling methods to systematic sampling. The LPM samples were selected solely using the coordinates (LPMxy) or, in addition to that, auxiliary remote sensing-based forest variables (RS variables). We utilized field measurement data (NFI-field) and Multi-Source NFI (MS-NFI) maps as target data, and independent MS-NFI maps as auxiliary data. The designs were compared using relative efficiency (RE); a ratio of mean squared errors of the reference sampling design against the studied design. Applying a method in NFI also requires a proven estimator for the variance. Therefore, three different variance estimators were evaluated against the empirical variance of replications: 1) an estimator corresponding to SRS; 2) a Grafström-Schelin estimator repurposed for LPM; and 3) a Matérn estimator applied in the Finnish NFI for systematic sampling design.
The LPMxy was nearly comparable with the systematic design for the most target variables. The REs of the LPM designs utilizing auxiliary data compared to the systematic design varied between 0.74–1.18, according to the studied target variable. The SRS estimator for variance was expectedly the most biased and conservative estimator. Similarly, the Grafström-Schelin estimator gave overestimates in the case of LPMxy. When the RS variables were utilized as auxiliary data, the Grafström-Schelin estimates tended to underestimate the empirical variance. In systematic sampling the Matérn and Grafström-Schelin estimators performed for practical purposes equally.
LPM optimized for a specific variable tended to be more efficient than systematic sampling, but all of the considered LPM designs were less efficient than the systematic sampling design for some target variables. The Grafström-Schelin estimator could be used as such with LPMxy or instead of the Matérn estimator in systematic sampling. Further studies of the variance estimators are needed if other auxiliary variables are to be used in LPM.
References(45)
Bezanson J, Edelman A, Karpinski S, Shah VB (2017) Julia: a fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Rev 59(1): 65-98. https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671
Cochran WG (1977) Sampling techniques, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
Ene LT, Næsset E, Gobakken T, Gregoire TG, Ståhl G, Holm S (2013) A simulation approach for accuracy assessment of two-phase post-stratified estimation in large-area LiDAR biomass surveys. Remote Sens Environ 133: 210-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.02.002
Grafström A, Lundström NLP (2013) Why well spread probability samples are balanced. Open J Stat 03(01): 36-41. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2013.31005
Grafström A, Lundström NLP, Schelin L (2012) Spatially balanced sampling through the pivotal method. Biometrics 68(2): 514-520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01699.x
Grafström A, Ringvall AH (2013) Improving forest field inventories by using remote sensing data in novel sampling designs. Can J For Res 43: 1015-1022. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0123
Grafström A, Schelin L (2014) How to select representative samples. Scand J Stat 41(2): 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjos.12016
Grafström A, Zhao X, Nylander M, Petersson H (2017) A new sampling strategy for forest inventories applied to the temporary clusters of the Swedish NFI. Can J For Res 47: 1161-1167. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2017-0095
Gregoire TG (1998) Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling: appreciating the difference. Can J For Res 28(10): 1429-1447. https://doi.org/10.1139/x98-166
Gregoire TG, Ran G, Hl S, Næsset E, Gobakken T, Nelson R, Ren Holm S (2011) Model-assisted estimation of biomass in a LiDAR sample survey in Hedmark County, Norway. Can J For Res 41: 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1139/X10-195
Kangas A, Astrup R, Breidenbach J, Fridman J, Gobakken T, Korhonen KT, Maltamo M, Nilsson M, Nord-Larsen T, Næsset E, Olsson H (2018) Remote sensing and forest inventories in Nordic countries - roadmap for the future. Scand J Forest Res 33(4): 397-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2017.1416666
Kangas A, Myllymäki M, Gobakken T, Næsset E (2016) Model-assisted forest inventory with parametric, semiparametric, and nonparametric models. Can J For Res 46: 855-868. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0504
Langsaeter A (1926) Om beregning av middelfeilen ved regelmessige linjetaksering (in Norwegian). Meddel fra det norske Skogforsøksvesen 2(7): 5-47
Magnussen S, Andersen HE, Mundhenk P (2015) A second look at endogenous poststratification. For Sci 61(4): 624-634. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.14-183
Magnussen S, McRoberts RE, Tomppo EO (2009) Model-based mean square error estimators for k-nearest neighbour predictions and applications using remotely sensed data for forest inventories. Remote Sens Environ 113(3): 476-488. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.04.018
Matérn B (1947) Methods of estimating the accuracy of line and sample plot surveys. Meddelanden från Statens Skogsforstkningsinstitut 36(1): 138
Matérn B (1960) Spatial variation. Stochastic models and their application to some problems in forest surveys and other sampling investigations. Meddelanden från Statens Skogsforskningsinstitut 49(5): 144
McRoberts RE, Næsset E, Gobakken T (2013) Inference for lidar-assisted estimation of forest growing stock volume. Remote Sens Environ 128: 268-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.10.007
Myllymäki M, Gobakken T, Næsset E, Kangas A (2017) The efficiency of poststratification compared with model-assisted estimation. Can J For Res 47(4): 515-526. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2016-0383
Opsomer JD, Jay Breidt F, Moisen GG, Kauermann G (2007) Model-assisted estimation of forest resources with generalized additive models. J Am Stati Assoc 102(478): 400-409. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001491
Räty M, Heikkinen J, Kangas AS (2018) Assessment of sampling strategies utilizing auxiliary information in large-scale forest inventory. Can J For Res 48(7): 749-757. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2017-0414
Roberge C, Grafström A, Ståhl G (2017) Forest damage inventory using the local pivotal sampling method. Can J For Res 47(3): 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2016-0411
Saarela S, Schnell S, Grafström A, Tuominen S, Nordkvist K, Hyyppä J, Kangas A, Ståhl G (2015) Effects of sample size and model form on the accuracy of model-based estimators of growing stock volume. Can J For Res 45: 1524-1534. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0077
Salminen S (1973) Tulosten luotettavuus ja karttatulostus valtakunnan metsien V inventoinnissa (in Finnish). Summary: reliability of the results from the fifth national forest inventory and a presentation of an output- mapping technique. Comm Inst Forest Fenn 78(6): 64
Stevens DL Jr, Olsen AR (2003) Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of environmental resources. Environmetrics 14(6): 593-610. https://doi.org/10.1002/env.606
Tipton J, Opsomer J, Moisen G (2013) Properties of endogenous post-stratified estimation using remote sensing data. Remote Sens Environ 139: 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.07.035
Tomppo E, Halme M (2004) Using coarse scale forest variables as ancillary information and weighting of variables in k-NN estimation: a genetic algorithm approach. Remote Sens Environ 92: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.04.003
Tomppo E, Heikkinen J, Henttonen HM, Ihalainen A, Katila M, Mäkelä H, Tuomainen T, Vainikainen N (2011) Designing and conducting a Forest inventory - case: 9th National Forest Inventory of Finland. Springer, Netherlands
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
FEEDBACK 
TOP