Presentation on theme: "Recap: Confidentiality of FIA Sample Locations What have we heard? Where do we agree? What more do we need to decide?"— Presentation transcript:
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”
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.
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
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?
Technique 3: 25% Random Most Similar Neighbor Swap etc.