Uses of power in designing long term environmental surveys
Download
1 / 54

USES OF POWER IN DESIGNING LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on

USES OF POWER IN DESIGNING LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS. N. Scott Urquhart Department of Statistics Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523-1877. OUTLINE FOR TONIGHT. Long-Term Environmental Surveys Agencies involved Sorts of Summaries of Interest

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'USES OF POWER IN DESIGNING LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS' - hugh


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Uses of power in designing long term environmental surveys l.jpg

USES OF POWERIN DESIGNING LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS

N. Scott UrquhartDepartment of Statistics

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, CO 80523-1877


Outline for tonight l.jpg
OUTLINE FOR TONIGHT

  • Long-Term Environmental Surveys

    • Agencies involved

  • Sorts of Summaries of Interest

  • Sources of Variation – Major ones

  • A Statistical Model

    • Superimposed on an Adapted Classical Sampling Model

    • Calculation of Power Using this Model

    • Illustrations

      • General

      • Specific

  • Generalizations - as Time Allows


Long term environmental surveys l.jpg
LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS

  • Objective: To Establish

    • The Current Status

    • Detect Long-Term Trends

    • Evaluate “Extent” of Various Classes

      • Of the Resource(s) of Interest

      • Usually Ecological or Living Resources

  • Agencies = Who

    • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)*

      • States and Tribes, and Local Jurisdictions

      • Response to Legislation Like the Clean Water Act

    • Forest Service – “Forest Health”

    • National Park Service*

    • Soil Conservation Service (not the current name)

    • National Marine Fisheries Service ( “ )

    • National Wetlands Inventory


Responses of interest l.jpg
RESPONSES of INTEREST

  • EPA

    • Variety of Chemical Measures of Water Quality

      • Nitrogen to Heavy Metals to Pesticides

      • Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC)

        • Important in Evaluating the Effect of “Acid Rain”

      • Composition of “Bugs” in the Aquatic Community

        • Thought to Contain Better Info on total Effects than Individual Chemicals

      • Fish Populations – Composition, not size

        • Clean Water Act Includes Reporting on Temperature Pollution


Responses of interest continued l.jpg
RESPONSES of INTEREST(continued)

  • National Park Service (Eg: Olympic NP in WA)

    • Vegetation

    • Bird Populations

      • Composition

      • Size of Various Species

    • Streams/Rivers

      • Fish Populations

      • Macroinvertebrate Communities

      • Extent of Intermittent Streams

    • Health of Glaciers

      • Extent – Shrinking with Global Warming?

      • Composition


Responses of interest continued ii l.jpg
RESPONSES of INTEREST(continued II)

  • Grand Canyon National Park

    • Erosion Around Archeological Resources

    • Near-river Terrestrial Environment (GCMRC)


Spatial extent l.jpg
SPATIAL EXTENT

  • Generally Large Areas

    • This is the Way Congress Writes Laws

  • Regions can be very large

    • 12 Western States

      • ND, SC, MT, WY, CO, ID, UT, NV, AZ, WA, OR, CA

    • Midatlantic Highlands

      • parts of PA, VA, WV, DE, MD

    • Individual States

    • Lands of Several related Tribes, or Even Only One

    • Groups of National Parks

    • Groups of Sanitation Districts, or even

    • Individual Sanitation Districts*


Summaries of interest l.jpg
SUMMARIES of INTEREST

  • Extent by Classes

    • Track Changes Between Classes

      • National Wetlands Inventory

        • Major focus

        • Has Very Good Graphic Depiction of Class Changes

  • “Status”

    • Often is summarized as an Estimated Cumulative Distribution Function (cdf)

      • Pose some Interesting Statistical Inference Problems Due to

        • Variable Probability Sampling – Almost Always Needed

        • Spatially Continuous Resources – No List Can Exist


Slide9 l.jpg

EXAMPLE OF

STATUS,

SUMMARIZED

BY A cdf



Summaries of interest continued l.jpg
SUMMARIES of INTEREST EMAP AND “DIP-IN”(continued)

  • Trends

    • Directional Changes in Responses

      • Reality: Detection of Short-Term Cycles is Beyond the Resources for the Foreseeable Future

      • Great Big Changes Don’t Require Surveys

      • So Interest Lies in Modest-Sized Long-Term Changes in One Direction

        • This means Changes the Scale of 1% to 2% Per Year

    • Usually a Trend for a Region

  • Regional Summaries of Individual Site Trends

    • Sometimes how trend varies in relation to other things


Slide12 l.jpg

IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF VARIANCE EMAP AND “DIP-IN”

  • POPULATION VARIANCE:

  • YEAR VARIANCE:

  • RESIDUAL VARIANCE:


Slide13 l.jpg

IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF VARIANCE EMAP AND “DIP-IN”

( - CONTINUED)

  • POPULATION VARIANCE:

    • VARIATION AMONG VALUES OF AN INDICATOR (RESPONSE) ACROSS ALL LAKES IN A REGIONAL POPULATION OR SUBPOPULATION


Slide14 l.jpg

IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF VARIANCE EMAP AND “DIP-IN”

( - CONTINUED II)

  • YEAR VARIANCE:

    • CONCORDANT VARIATION AMONG VALUES OF AN INDICATOR (RESPONSE) ACROSS YEARS FOR ALL LAKES IN A REGIONAL POPULATION OR SUBPOPULATION

    • NOTVARIATION IN AN INDICATOR ACROSS YEARS AT A LAKE

    • DETRENDED REMAINDER, IF TREND IS PRESENT

      • EFFECTIVELY THE DEVIATION AWAY FROM THE TREND LINE (OR OTHER CURVE)


Slide15 l.jpg

IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF VARIANCE EMAP AND “DIP-IN”

( - CONTINUED - III)

  • RESIDUAL COMPONENT OF VARIANCE

    • HAS SEVERAL SUBCOMPONENTS

    • YEAR*LAKE INTERACTION

      • THIS CONTAINS MOST OF WHAT MOST ECOLOGISTS WOULD CALL YEAR TO YEAR VARIATION, I.E. THE LAKE SPECIFIC PART

    • INDEX VARIATION

      • MEASUREMENT ERROR

      • CREW-TO-CREW VARIATION

      • LOCAL SPATIAL = PROTOCOL

      • SHORT TERM TEMPORAL


Biological indicators have somewhat more variability than physical indicators but this varies too l.jpg
BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS HAVE SOMEWHAT MORE VARIABILITY THAN PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • Subsequent slides show the relative amount of variability

    • Ordered by the amount of residual variability: least to most (aquatic responses)

      • Acid Neutralizing Capacity

      • Ln(Conductance)

      • Ln(Chloride)

      • pH(Closed system)

      • Secchi Depth

      • Ln(Total Nitrogen)

      • Ln(Total Phosphorus)

      • Ln(Chlorophyll A)

      • Ln( # zooplankton taxa)

      • Ln( # rotifer taxa)

      • Maximum Temperature

And others, both aquatic and terrestrial


Source of components of variance from grand canyon l.jpg
SOURCE OF COMPONENTS OF VARIANCE FROM GRAND CANYON PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

    • Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the Near-River Habitat in the Grand Canyon

    • At Various Heights Above the River

    • Height Is Measured as the Height of the River’s Water at Various Flow Rates

      • Eg: 15K cfs, 25K cfs, 35K cfs, 45K cfs & 60K cfs

  • Using First Two Years’ Data

    • Mike Kearsley – UNA

  • Design = Spatially Balanced

    • With about 1/3 revisited


All variability is of interest l.jpg
ALL VARIABILITY IS OF INTEREST PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • The Site Component of Variance is One of the Major Descriptors of the Regional Population

  • The Year Component of Variance Often is Small, too Small to Estimate. If Present, it is a Major Enemy for Detecting Trend Over Time.

    • If it has even a moderate size, “sample size” reverts to the number of years.

    • In this case, the number of visits and/or number of sites has no practical effect.


All variability is of interest continued l.jpg
ALL VARIABILITY IS OF INTEREST PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO( - CONTINUED)

  • Residual Variance Characterizes the Inherent Variation in the Response or Indicator.

  • But Some of its Subcomponents May Contain Useful Management Information

    • CREW EFFECTS ===> training

    • VISIT EFFECTS ===> need to reexamine definition of index (time) window or evaluation protocol

    • MEASUREMENT ERROR ===> work on laboratory/measurement problems


Design trade offs trend vs status l.jpg
DESIGN TRADE-OFFS: TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOvs STATUS

  • How do we Detect Trend in Spite of All of This Variation?

  • Recall Two Old Statistical “Friends.”

    • Variance of a mean, and

    • Blocking


Design trade offs trend vs status continued l.jpg
DESIGN TRADE-OFFS: TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOvs STATUS( - CONTINUED)

  • VARIANCE OF A MEAN:

    • Where m members of the associated population have been randomly selected and their response values averaged.

    • Here the “mean” is a regional average slope, so "s2" refers to the variance of an estimated slope ---


Design trade offs trend vs status continued ii l.jpg
DESIGN TRADE-OFFS: TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOvs STATUS( - CONTINUED - II)

  • Consequently

  • Becomes

  • Note that the regional averaging of slopes has the same effect as continuing to monitor at one site for a much longer time period.


Design trade offs trend vs status continued iii l.jpg
DESIGN TRADE-OFFS: TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOvs STATUS( - CONTINUED - III)

  • Now, s2, in total, is large.

  • If we take one regional sample of sites at one time, and another at a subsequent time, the site component of variance is included in s2.

  • Enter the concept of blocking, familiar from experimental design.

    • Regard a site like a block

    • Periodically revisit a site

    • The site component of variance vanishes from the variance of a slope.


Statistical model l.jpg
STATISTICAL MODEL PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • CONSIDER A FINITE POPULATION OF SITES

    • {S1 , S2 , … , SN }

  • and A TIME SERIES OF RESPONSE VALUES AT EACH SITE:

    • A FINITE POPULATION OF TIME SERIES

    • TIME IS CONTINUOUS, BUT SUPPOSE

      • ONLY A SAMPLE CAN BE OBSERVED IN ANY YEAR, and

      • ONLY DURING AN INDEX WINDOW OF, SAY, 10% OF A YEAR


Statistical model ii l.jpg
STATISTICAL MODEL -- II PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO


Statistical model iii l.jpg
STATISTICAL MODEL -- III PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO


Statistical model iv l.jpg
STATISTICAL MODEL -- IV PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • IF p INDEXES PANELS, THEN

    • Sites are nested in panels: p ( i ) and

    • Years of visit are indicated by panel with npj = 0 or npj> 0 for panels visited in year j.

    • The vector of cell means (of visited cells) has a covariance matrix S :


Statistical model v l.jpg
STATISTICAL MODEL -- V PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • Now let X denote a regressor matrix containing a column of 1s and a column of the numbers of the time periods corresponding to the filled cells. The second elements of

    contain an estimate of the regional trend and its variance.


Toward power l.jpg
TOWARD POWER PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • Ability of a panel plan to detect trend can be expressed as power.

  • We will evaluate power in terms of these ratios of variance components

  • Power depends on the ratios of variance components, the panel plan, and on


Now put it all together l.jpg
NOW PUT IT ALL TOGETHER PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • Question: “ What kind of temporal design should you use for Northwest National Parks?

  • We’ll investigate two (families) of recommended designs.

    • All illustrations will be based on 30 site visits per year, a reasonable number given resources.

    • General relations are uninfluenced by number of sites visited per year, but specific performance is.

  • We’ll use the panel notation Trent McDonald published.


Recommendation of fuller and breidt l.jpg
RECOMMENDATION OF PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOFULLER and BREIDT

  • Based on the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI)

    • Iowa State & US Department of Agriculture

      • Oriented toward soil erosion &

      • Changes in land use

  • Their recommendation

    • Pure panel =[1-0] =“Always Revisit”

    • Independent =[1-n]=“Never Revisit”

  • Evaluation context

    • No trampling effect – remotely sensed data

    • No year effects

  • Administrative reality of potential variation in funding from year to year

MATH RECOME

100% 50%

0% 50%


Temporal layout of 1 0 1 n l.jpg
TEMPORAL LAYOUT OF [(1-0), (1-n)] PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO


First temporal design family l.jpg
FIRST TEMPORAL DESIGN FAMILY PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • 30 site visits per year


Power to detect trend first temporal design family no year effect l.jpg
POWER TO DETECT TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOFIRST TEMPORAL DESIGN FAMILY NO YEAR EFFECT

Always

Revisit

Never

Revisit


Power to detect trend first temporal design family modest some year effect l.jpg
POWER TO DETECT TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOFIRST TEMPORAL DESIGN FAMILY, MODEST (= SOME) YEAR EFFECT


Power to detect trend first temporal design family big lots year effect l.jpg
POWER TO DETECT TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOFIRST TEMPORAL DESIGN FAMILYBIG (= LOTS) YEAR EFFECT


Serially alternating temporal design 1 3 4 sometimes used by emap l.jpg
SERIALLY ALTERNATING TEMPORAL DESIGN [(1-3) PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO4 ] SOMETIMES USED BY EMAP


Serially alternating temporal design 1 3 4 sometimes used by emap40 l.jpg
SERIALLY ALTERNATING TEMPORAL DESIGN [(1-3) PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO4 ] SOMETIMES USED BY EMAP

  • Unconnected in an experimental design sense

    • Very weak design for estimating year effects, if present


Split panel 1 4 5 l.jpg
SPLIT PANEL [(1-4) PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO5 , ---]

  • AGAIN, Unconnected in an experimental design sense

    • Matches better with FIA

    • Still a very weak design for estimating year effects, if present


Split panel 1 4 5 2 3 5 l.jpg
SPLIT PANEL [(1-4) PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO5 ,(2-3)5 ]

  • This Temporal Design IS connected

  • Has three panels which match up with FIA


Second temporal design family l.jpg
SECOND TEMPORAL DESIGN FAMILY PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • 30 site visits per year


Power to detect trend second temporal design family no year effect l.jpg
POWER TO DETECT TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOSECOND TEMPORAL DESIGN FAMILY NO YEAR EFFECT


Power to detect trend second temporal design family some year effect l.jpg
POWER TO DETECT TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOSECOND TEMPORAL DESIGN FAMILYSOME YEAR EFFECT


Power to detect trend second temporal design family lots of year effect l.jpg
POWER TO DETECT TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOSECOND TEMPORAL DESIGN FAMILYLOTS OF YEAR EFFECT


Comparison of power to detect trend design 1 2 rows l.jpg
COMPARISON OF POWER TO DETECT TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOODESIGN 1 & 2 = ROWS

YEAR EFFECT

NONE SOME LOTS


Power to detect trend varying year effect and temporal design l.jpg
POWER TO DETECT TREND PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOVARYING YEAR EFFECT AND TEMPORAL DESIGN


Standard error of status temporal design 1 no year effect l.jpg
STANDARD ERROR OF STATUS PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOTEMPORAL DESIGN 1, NO YEAR EFFECT

TOTAL OF 30 SITES

110 SITES VISITED BY YEAR 5

410 SITES VISITED BY YEAR 20


Standard error of status temporal design 2 no year effect l.jpg
STANDARD ERROR OF STATUS PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOOTEMPORAL DESIGN 2, NO YEAR EFFECT

TOTAL OF 75 SITES

TOTAL OF 150 SITES


Generalizations l.jpg
GENERALIZATIONS PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • Each site can have its own trend

    • These very likely differ

  • How should we approach this reality?

    • There is a cdf of trends across the region

    • Variation in trends can be partitioned

      • Components are very similar to those used for responses:

        • Years

        • Rivers

        • Sites within rivers


Illustration l.jpg
ILLUSTRATION PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

  • Stoddard, J.L., Kahl, J.S., Deviney, F.A., DeWalle, D.R., Driscoll, C.T., Herlihy, A.T., Kellogg, J.H., Murdoch, J.R. Webb, J.R., and Webster, K.E. (2003). Response of Surface Water Chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. EPA/620/R-02/004. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.


Slide54 l.jpg

This research is funded by PHYSICAL INDICATORS – BUT THIS VARIES, TOO

U.S.EPA – Science To Achieve

Results (STAR) Program

Cooperative

Agreement

# CR - 829095

FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The work reported here today was developed under the STAR Research Assistance Agreement CR-829095 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Colorado State University. This presentation has not been formally reviewed by EPA.  The views expressed here are solely those of presenter and STARMAP, the Program he represents. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this presentation.


ad