1 / 11

Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations

Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations. What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?. What Have We Heard?. Generally supportive of intent of law Need at least fuzzed coordinates for all plots Some analyses require exact coordinates

peggy
Download Presentation

Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations • What have we heard? • Where do we agree? • What more do we need to decide?

  2. What Have We Heard? • Generally supportive of intent of law • Need at least fuzzed coordinates for all plots • Some analyses require exact coordinates • Some of these are iterative in nature • Want provision for adjunct inventories • Results need to be repeatable • Be flexible in granting “agent” status • One approach is “plausible deniability”

  3. Where Do We Agree? • Agents must have signed agreement, have approved proposal, and must understand the use of FIA data • States/Universities can serve as Service Centers • Agents should not be regulatory • No exact coordinates for private owners • +1/2 mi fuzz for plot integrity is satisfactory for most applications • Target ownership groups are: NIPF, Forest Industry, Corporate, Other Private • Standard data set with individual plots.

  4. Where Do We Agree? (cont.) • Rule of 3 applied to these by county (combine counties if necessary) • Don’t need web and downloads to match published results, but should match each other • Focus on using the swapping alternative • Swap no more than once per cycle • Ownership group would stay with the fuzzed coordinates when swapping

  5. What More Do We Need to Decide? • Are intensifications conducted by States subject to same rules? • What about access by non-FIA Forest Service researchers? and their cooperators? • Consider other MSN attributes, especially more permanent ones, e.g., productivity class • Consider impacts of making swap permanent vs. loss of homogeneity over time within MSN groupings • Do more testing under various conditions • Can we swap within an owner?

  6. Technique 3: 25% Random Most Similar Neighbor Swap etc. etc. etc.

  7. % Table Output > 25% Different than Original EstimateVolume by Species and Diameter ClassEstimate for Allegheny NF:25% In/Out Swap = 43%25% Random Swap = 24%25% Random MSN Swap = 19%

  8. % Table Summaries > SEof Original Estimate(volume of all species by diameter class)Estimate for Allegany NF 25% In/Out Swap = 10%25% Random Swap = 10%25% Random MSN Swap = 0%

  9. Thoughts? Other Alternatives?

More Related