Comparison of the local pivotal method and systematic sampling for national forest inventories

Abstract

Background 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

A century of national forest inventories – informing past, present and future decisions

“…The local pivotal method (LPM) is a form of balanced sampling method that produces small uncertainties with a minimum number of sample plots which, of course, is of considerable relevance for NFI programs. In the context of the Finnish NFI, Räty et al (2020) found, however, that LPM-sampling could not markedly improve estimates based on systematic sampling when considering several variables of interest as is typical in NFIs. Complementing the study by Magnussen et al (2020), Räty et al (2020) identify a variance estimator originally developed for LPM that is well-suited for systematic sampling.…”

Impact of Using Social Media on the Academic Performance A Case of College Going Students in Loralai Division

“…Convenience sampling is a type of nonprobability sampling where participants of the targeted population are approached to collect data based on easy accessibility (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). After having consent from the administrations of the selected colleges' students from each class will be selected through systematic sampling (Raty, 2020).…”

Comparison of Variance Estimators for Systematic Environmental Sample Surveys: Considerations for Post-Stratified Estimation

“…Under HT estimation, many alternatives have been proposed which typically involve squared differences between a local mean of neighboring points and the observation. To make these estimators consistent with PS estimation, we plug in the residualê(t hi ) to alternative estimators presented for HT variance estimation, which is an approach taken in several other studies [19,20].…”