11
Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?

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

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

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

Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations

• What have we heard?

• Where do we agree?

• What more do we need to decide?

Page 2: 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• 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”

Page 3: Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?

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.

Page 4: Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?

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

Page 5: Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?

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?

Page 6: Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?

Technique 3: 25% RandomMost Similar NeighborSwap

etc.etc.

etc.

Page 7: Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?
Page 8: Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?

% Table Output > 25% Different than Original Estimate

Volume by Species and Diameter ClassEstimate for Allegheny NF:

25% In/Out Swap = 43% 25% Random Swap = 24%25% Random MSN Swap = 19%

Page 9: Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?
Page 10: Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?

% 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%

Page 11: Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?

Thoughts?

Other Alternatives?