Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Islam, M.N., Kurttila, M., Mehttalo, L. & Haara, A. 2009. Analyzing the effects of inventory errors
on holding-level forest plans: the case of measurement error in the basal area of the dominated
tree species. Silva Fennica 43(1): 7185.
Accurate inventory data are required for ensuring optimal net return on investment from
the forest. Erroneous data can lead to the formulation of a non-optimal plan that can cause
inoptimality losses. Little is known of the effect of using erroneous stand inventory data in
preparing holding-level forest plans. This study reports on an approach for analyzing such
inoptimality losses. Furthermore, inoptimality losses caused by measurement errors in the
basal area of the dominated tree species were investigated in a case study. Based on the
inventory data including routine measurements by 67 measurers, four measurer groups were
created with different measurement error profiles for the basal area of the dominated tree
species. This was followed by measurement error simulations for each group and by adding
these to the accurate control inventory data to create erroneous data of different error profiles.
Three different forest plans were then constructed by using erroneous data of each group.
The plans were then analyzed and compared with plans based on correct data. The effect
of measurement errors on the net present value from the whole planning period, and on the
amount of remaining growing stock at the end of planning period, were analyzed and utilized
in calculating the inoptimality losses. It was concluded that even errors involving dominated
tree species can cause significant changes in the holding-level forest plans.
Keywords dominated tree species, erroneous inventory data, forest plan, inoptimality loss
Addresses Islam & Haara: University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101
Joensuu, Finland; Kurttila: Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Unit,
FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland; Mehttalo: University of Helsinki, Dept. of Forest Resource
Management, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
E-mail nurul.islam@joensuu.fi; arto.haara@joensuu.fi; mikko.kurttila@metla.fi;
lauri.mehtatalo@helsinki.fi
Received 21 April 2008 Revised 13 November 2008 Accepted 18 December 2008
Available at http://www.metla.fi/silvafennica/full/sf43/sf431071.pdf
71
1 Introduction
The task of forest planning is to find a combination of treatment schedules for stands that best
meets the forest owners multiple goals expressed
at the level of the forest holding. Due to the
huge number of different combinations of treatment schedules even in a small forest holding,
numerical optimization methods need to be used
to define efficient forest plans. The selection of
treatment schedules for stands during optimization is based on the outcomes of simulated treatment schedules and on the objectives of the forest
owner. Errors in initial inventory data can result in
errors in the outcomes and also in the simulation
of treatment schedules. These errors can lead to
the drawing up of a non-optimal forest plan at
the holding-level.
Inventory data can be collected through field
sampling either by maintaining statistical principles or by applying subjective sampling procedures. Remote sensing methods, such as laser
scanning, are expected to become a commonly
used inventory method in the near-future (e.g.
Nsset et al. 2004). However, the stand-wise
inventory method continues to play an important
role in data collection for detailed management
planning, especially in non-industrial private forests (Koivuniemi and Korhonen 2006). In Finland, for example, every year about one million
hectares of non-industrial private forests (Tapion
vuositilastot... 2005) are inventoried by applying
this method. This method is a type of sampling
method where the sampling points are selected
subjectively according to the measurers choice.
The method is conducted in two steps. In the
first step, the stands (or compartments, which
are geographically contiguous parcels of forest
land whose site type, species composition, and
tree age are homogenous) are delineated on the
map. In the second step, the measurer subjectively
selects some sampling points or sometimes only
one sampling point per stand. The measurer takes
the measurements for various forest variables,
such as basal area, diameter and height of basal
area median tree, and mean age for each tree species and canopy layer in the stand. Some of these
variables may be taken only visually, without
using any instruments. If the number of sampling
72
research articles
Analyzing the Effects of Inventory Errors on Holding-Level Forest Plans: the Case of
research articles
Analyzing the Effects of Inventory Errors on Holding-Level Forest Plans: the Case of
research articles
High
variance
Dataset #1
Dataset #2
103.2
21882
212.0
5.7
30%
60%
9%
1%
Bias =
76
Y
i =1
(1)
Group HBHV
(High Bias
High Variance)
Group LBHV
(Low Bias
High Variance)
Low bias%
High bias%
Median
Group HBLV
(High Bias
Low Variance)
Group LBLV
(Low Bias
Low Variance)
Low
variance
Variance (Y ) =
(bias Y )
i
n 1
(2)
(3)
where n is the number of observations for the measurer, mean of basal area in correct data includes
only the dominated tree species and Yi = Measured
valuei Correct valuei.
Analyzing the Effects of Inventory Errors on Holding-Level Forest Plans: the Case of
Table 2. Description of the objectives and constraints of the three forest plans.
Plan
Objective function
Maximize NPV
s.t.
Remaining growing stock at the end of planning period > Current growing stock
Even flow of cuttings in each sub-period
77
research articles
tj
c x
j =1 i =1
ij
ij
(4)
tj
g x
j =1 i =1
ij
ij
(5)
r ijp x ij r ijp x ij = 0
(6)
j =1 i =1
j = 1 i = 1
x = A , j = 1, 2, 3.........n
i =1
ij
(7)
so that the area under different treatment schedules for stand j would be equal to the total area,
Aj of the stand.
The symbols in the above equations are:
cij = Discounted value (NPV) of net incomes
of treatment i on stand j. Timber prices in
Finnish market from the year 2005 (Finnish
Statistical yearbook 2006) and 3% interest
rate were used in NPV calculation.
xij = Area of stand j under treatment i
n = Number of stands
tj = Number of treatments in stand j
gij = Growing stock of stand j under treatment i at
the end of planning period (m3)
rijp = Amount of removals (m3) per hectare from
stand j by treatment i during sub-period p
rijp' = Amount of removals (m3) per hectare from
stand j by treatment i during sub-period p+1
Aj = Total area of stand j
4 Results
4.1 Categorization of Measurers
The grouping of measurers is shown in Table 3.
The measurers made both positive and negative
biases, but most of them made negative bias. This
means that they underestimated the basal areas of
dominated tree species. Most of the measurers
from Groups HBLV and HBHV made significant
(P < 0.05) bias.
4.2 The Effects of Measurement Errors on
Treatment Schedules
The use of erroneous data clearly affected the
extent of thinnings at holding-level during the
planning period. Underestimation of the basal
area always leads to correct or delayed timing
of thinning, whereas overestimation can lead to
correct or early timing. This is clearly seen from
Table 4, where high bias with the systematic
underestimation of the total basal area of dominated tree species caused lot of delayed thinnings
(Groups HBHV and HBLV), whereas low bias
allows both early and delayed thinnings (Groups
LBHV and LBLV). In some stands, delayed thinning meant that thinning was postponed to occur
beyond the 15-year planning period. This is why
the thinning areas vary between the groups: the
smaller the thinning area is, the more thinnings
Analyzing the Effects of Inventory Errors on Holding-Level Forest Plans: the Case of
Table 3. Groups and grouping of measurers based on the bias% and variance of measurement
error in measuring the basal area of dominated tree species.
Groups
Criteria
(according to
Fig. 1)
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
Number of
measurers
(% of
measurers)
Group mean
(standard deviation
in parentheses)
Bias %
Variance
12.52
(10.92)
11.83
(10.90)
44.47
(17.41)
49.45
(16.29)
3.53
(1.84)
11.62
(5.04)
3.55
(1.72)
10.75
(5.39)
Number of
measurers who
made significant
bias (P < 0.05)
4
1
13
11
Dataset #1
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
49.0
53.8
46.0
42.2
6
6
13
16
3
8
0
1
25
23
21
18
Dataset #2
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
13.3
11.6
5.1
6.9
3
7
8
8
4
3
0
0
3
1
1
1
research articles
Table 5. Final cutting area, harvest volumes, remaining growing stocks (at the end of the 15-year planning period)
and NPV under the different planning problems for both correct and erroneous data of Dataset #1.
Data
source
Remanining
growing
stock (m3)
NPV ()
Plan #1
Correct
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
116.5
116.5
116.5
115.4
114.2
23509
23294
23320
23506
23139
11441
11095
11023
10986
10922
34950
34389
34343
34492
34061
22678
23232
23276
23511
23776
797311
792500
790796
790261
785859
Plan #2
Correct
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
42.6
46.6
46.5
48.1
48.7
11940
12764
12868
13314
13022
6161
5715
5838
5765
5698
18101
18479
18706
19079
18720
41700
41187
40882
40649
41045
451489
476634
479225
492230
484035
Plan #3
Correct
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
42.5
46.8
46.5
48.3
48.5
12925
13760
13391
14113
13882
6113
5724
5836
5734
5672
19038
19484
19227
19847
19554
41700
41111
41262
40652
41054
441149
469212
461115
484629
475197
Table 6. Final cutting area, harvest volumes, remaining growing stocks (at the end of the 15-year planning period)
and NPV under the different planning problems for both correct and erroneous data of Dataset #2.
Data
source
Remanining
growing
stock (m3)
NPV ()
Plan #1
Correct
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
65.7
65.7
65.7
65.7
65.7
15935
16083
15881
15995
16149
3518
3401
3396
3166
3299
19453
19484
19277
19161
19488
7498
7571
7680
8019
7800
559398
555903
555538
553277
548788
Plan #2
Correct
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
18.2
17.1
17.9
20.7
18.0
5788
5542
5666
6077
5606
1482
1320
1356
1187
1247
7269
6862
7022
7264
6853
21880
22415
22217
21984
22470
223311
212375
218096
230773
215888
Plan #3
Correct
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
18.3
17.1
17.9
19.4
17.2
6228
5960
6130
6453
5819
1422
1267
1331
1162
1245
7650
7227
7461
7617
7064
21880
22441
22190
22028
22643
212827
201145
211101
219526
201132
80
Analyzing the Effects of Inventory Errors on Holding-Level Forest Plans: the Case of
Total (m3)
Dataset #1
LBLV
6665
LBHV 8190
HBLV
7189
HBHV 6801
6439
4587
6555
6353
6379
6449
6104
6398
19483
19226
19848
19552
Dataset #2
LBLV
2242
LBHV 2497
HBLV
2527
HBHV 2403
2377
2506
2573
2169
2609
2458
2517
2493
7228
7461
7617
7065
81
research articles
Data source
NPVcorr
()*
Data source
NPVcorr
()*
NPVerr
Inoptimality loss
(from Table 5) (NPVcorr NPVerr)
()
()
NPVerr
Inoptimality loss
(from Table 6) (NPVcorr NPVerr)
()
()
Plan #1
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
797311
797311
797311
797311
792500
790796
790261
785859
4811
6515
7050
11452
Plan #1
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
559398
559398
559398
559398
555903
555538
553277
548788
3495
3860
6121
10610
Plan #2
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
481477
486178
495465
490703
476634
479225
492230
484035
4843
6953
3235
6668
Plan #2
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
216422
226199
237275
221143
212375
218096
230773
215888
4047
8103
6502
5255
Plan #3
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
470541
467732
491378
480247
469212
461115
484629
475197
1329
6617
6749
5050
Plan #3
LBLV
LBHV
HBLV
HBHV
202030
216254
224707
204162
201145
211101
219526
201132
885
5153
5181
3030
Analyzing the Effects of Inventory Errors on Holding-Level Forest Plans: the Case of
by using LP formulation. This approach summarizes loss into a single figure. The loss expresses
how much improvement the forest owner could
get by rescheduling the harvests, given that the
constraints would remain at the level they are in
the current plan. However, it does not take into
account the loss caused by the constraints not
being actually met or being exceeded in the current plan. The use of even-flow constraints, for
example, caused some problems in calculating
the inoptimality losses. As an alternative to the
approach described in Chapter 2, the calculation
of inoptimality loss from Plan #3 could have been
done by using similar even-flow constraints as
were used in optimization procedure. However,
the approach we used ensured that the current plan
is included among the possible plans.
As an additional alternative to the selected
approach for estimating the inoptimality loss, the
use of the multi-attribute utility function as an
objective function of optimization calculations
would have been possible. Had the utility function been used, the inoptimality losses caused by
applying non-optimal treatment schedules could
have been calculated simply as utility loss. This
loss could have been then transformed into monetary values by applying the approach presented by
Kurttila et al. (2005), where the opportunity cost
of voluntary biodiversity protection was estimated
at forest holding-level. However, this alternative
approach demands that the parameters of the utility function can be accurately estimated, because
they have a major impact on the magnitude of the
inoptimality losses.
Only the effects during the 15-year planning
period were considered in the case study, and
the examination did not take into account the
development of the stands during the remainder
of the rotation nor the coming rotations. In addition to direct inoptimality losses from only the
planning period that were measured in the case
study, delayed thinnings and other non-optimal
treatments of stands also cause subsequent losses
to the forest owner because stand development is
delayed, at least when viewed in the light of the
applied treatment recommendations.
84
research articles
References
Altman, N.S. 1992. The introduction to kernel and
nearest neighbour nonparametric regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 46:
175185.
Anttila, P. 2002. Updating stand level inventory data
applying growth models and visual interpretation of aerial photographs. Silva Fennica 36(2):
549560.
Ary, D. & Jacobs, L.C. 1976. Introduction to statistics:
purposes and procedures. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York, ... 461 p.
Duvemo, K. & Lms, T. 2006. The influence of
forest data quality on planning processes in forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research
21: 327339.
, Barth, A. & Wallerman, J. 2007. Evaluating
sample plot imputation techniques as input in forest
management planning. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 37: 20692079.
Eid, T. 1991. Consequenses of erroneous data basis for
planning and management of forest holdings. s:
Skogforsk. Rapp. Skogsforsk 9/91. (In Norwegian
with English summary).
1993. Random errors and strategic planning in
forestry. s: Norwegian Forest Research Institute.
Medd. Skogforsk 46(7).
2000. Use of uncertain inventory data in forestry
scenario models and consequential incorrect harvest decisions. Silva Fennica 34(2): 89100.
2001. Models for prediction of basal area mean
diameter and number of trees for forest stands in
south-eastern Norway. Scandinavian Journal of
Forest Research 16: 467479.
, Gobakken, T. & Nsset, E. 2004. Comparing
stand inventories for large areas based on photointerpretation and laser scanning by means of costplus-loss analyses. Scandinavian Journal of Forest
Research 19: 512523.
Finnish Statistical yearbook of Forestry. 2006. Finnish Forest Research Institute. SVT Agriculture,
Forestry and Fishery. 438 p.
Haara, A. 2005. The uncertainty of forest management
planning data in Finnish non-industrial private forestry. Doctoral Thesis. Dissertationes Forestales 8.
University of Joensuu 34 p + 5 appendices.
& Korhonen, K.T. 2004. Kuvioittaisen arvioinnin
luotettavuus. Metstieteen aikakauskirja 4/2004:
Analyzing the Effects of Inventory Errors on Holding-Level Forest Plans: the Case of
85