Article

 

A Comparison of the Spatial Linear Model to Nearest Neighbor (k-NN) Methods for Forestry Applications Public Deposited

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/2z10wq84z

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract
  • Forest surveys provide critical information for many diverse interests. Data are often collected from samples, and from these samples, maps of resources and estimates of aerial totals or averages are required. In this paper, two approaches for mapping and estimating totals; the spatial linear model (SLM) and k-NN (k-Nearest Neighbor) are compared, theoretically, through simulations, and as applied to real forestry data. While both methods have desirable properties, a review shows that the SLM has prediction optimality properties, and can be quite robust. Simulations of artificial populations and resamplings of real forestry data show that the SLM has smaller empirical root-mean-squared prediction errors (RMSPE) for a wide variety of data types, with generally less bias and better interval coverage than k-NN. These patterns held for both point predictions and for population totals or averages, with the SLM reducing RMSPE from 9% to 67% over some popular k-NN methods, with SLM also more robust to spatially imbalanced sampling. Estimating prediction standard errors remains a problem for k-NN predictors, despite recent attempts using model-based methods. Our conclusions are that the SLM should generally be used rather than k-NN if the goal is accurate mapping or estimation of population totals or averages.
License
Resource Type
DOI
Date Available
Date Issued
Citation
Journal Title
Journal Volume
  • 8
Journal Issue/Number
  • 3
Academic Affiliation
Rights Statement
Funding Statement (additional comments about funding)
  • This project received financial support from Alaska Fisheries Science Center of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. Thefindings and conclusions in the paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Anyuse of trade names is for description purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The funders had no role in study design, datacollection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Publisher
Peer Reviewed
Language
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Deborah Campbell (deborah.campbell@oregonstate.edu) on 2013-05-21T17:56:12Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: bb87e2fb4674c76d0d2e9ed07fbb9c86 (MD5) TemesgenHailemariamForestEngineeringResourcesManagementComparisonSpatialLinear.pdf: 671330 bytes, checksum: 6f54c85b8742f4bac86b59f33d90bfa4 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2013-05-21T17:56:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: bb87e2fb4674c76d0d2e9ed07fbb9c86 (MD5) TemesgenHailemariamForestEngineeringResourcesManagementComparisonSpatialLinear.pdf: 671330 bytes, checksum: 6f54c85b8742f4bac86b59f33d90bfa4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-03-19
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Deborah Campbell(deborah.campbell@oregonstate.edu) on 2013-05-21T17:56:52Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: bb87e2fb4674c76d0d2e9ed07fbb9c86 (MD5) TemesgenHailemariamForestEngineeringResourcesManagementComparisonSpatialLinear.pdf: 671330 bytes, checksum: 6f54c85b8742f4bac86b59f33d90bfa4 (MD5)

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Items