高级检索

空间分层抽样与系统抽样的对比研究——以云南云景林业开发有限公司森林资源规划设计调查为例

Comparative study between spatial stratified sampling and systematic sampling: taking Jinglin forest resources as an example

  • 摘要: 依托云南云景林业开发有限公司森林资源规划设计调查,采用空间分层抽样技术,以第四次森林资源规划设计调查小班矢量数据、2018年森林资源管理“一张图”小班矢量数据为空间分层依据,以地类、优势树种、龄组为分层变量,将第四次森林资源规划设计调查落入云南云景林业开发有限公司经营范围内的62个总体蓄积量控制样地进行分层,计算在相同可靠性(95%)和95%、90%、85%不同设计精度3种情况下所需样本单元数,并与系统抽样进行对比。计算结果显示,可靠性95%时,95%、90%和85%三种设计精度的系统抽样所需样本单元数比例关系为3.8:1.0:0.4。分层抽样所需样本单元数均比系统抽样少。依据地类、优势树种、龄组3个分层变量分层后计算的分层抽样所需样本单元数,设计精度95%时,分别比系统抽样少8.79%、12.38%、18.35%;设计精度90%时,分别比系统抽样少12.50%、15.83%、21.67%;设计精度85%时,分别比系统抽样少8.82%、11.76%、17.65%。在相同的抽样设计精度下,抽样单元数均呈现地类>优势树种>龄组的普遍规律。同样采用空间分层技术,将云南云景林业开发有限公司森林资源规划设计调查247个总体蓄积量控制样地调查成果数据进行分层,计算实际抽样精度,以此开展事前分层抽样、事后分层抽样与系统抽样的对比研究。从实际抽样精度计算结果看,分层抽样精度普遍比系统抽样精度高。分层抽样中,事后分层抽样比事前分层抽样精度高出1-2个百分点。事前分层抽样中,分层变量相同的情况下,依据2018年森林资源管理“一张图”小班矢量数据进行分层的抽样精度略高于依据第四次森林资源规划设计调查小班矢量数据进行分层的抽样精度。在可靠性和抽样设计精度相同时,始终以优势树种为分层变量的实际抽样精度最高,说明利用优势树种进行分层抽样的效果最好。

     

    Abstract: Relying on forest resources planning and design for Yunnan Yunjing Forestry Development Co., LTD, using spatial stratified sampling technique, based on the small class vector data from the fourth investigation of forest resources planning and design and "one map" of forest resources management in 2018, with land types, dominant tree species, and age group as the stratification variables, the 62 total volume control plots in the fourth forest resources planning and design survey were stratified, and the number of sample units required under the same reliability(95%) and different design precision(95%, 90%, 85%) were calculated, and compared with the system sampling. The calculation results show that when the reliability is 95%, the proportion of sample units required by the system sampling with 95%, 90% and 85% design accuracy is 3.8:1.0:0.4. Stratified sampling requires fewer sample units than systematic sampling. The number of sample units required by stratified sampling calculated according to the stratified variables of land class, dominant tree species and age group was 8.79%, 12.38% and 18.35% less than that of systematic sampling when the design accuracy was 95%. When the design accuracy is 90%, it is 12.50%, 15.83% and 21.67% less than the system sampling. When the design accuracy is 85%, it is 8.82%, 11.76% and 17.65% less than the system sampling. Under the same sampling design accuracy, the number of sampling units showed the general rule of land species > dominant tree species > age group. The results of 247 total volume control plots in the forest resource planning and design survey of Yunnan Yunjing Forestry Development Co., LTD were stratified by using spatial stratification technique, and the actual sampling accuracy was calculated, so as to carry out the comparative study of pre-stratified sampling, post-stratified sampling and systematic sampling.From the actual sampling accuracy calculation results, the stratified sampling accuracy is generally higher than the system sampling accuracy. In stratified sampling, the accuracy of post-stratified sampling is 1-2 percentage points higher than that of pre-stratified sampling. In prior stratified sampling, with the same stratified variables, the sampling accuracy of stratified sampling based on the small-class vector data of "one Map" of forest resource management in 2018 is slightly higher than that based on the small-class vector data of the fourth forest resource planning and design survey. When the reliability and sampling design accuracy are the same, the actual sampling accuracy is always the highest when the dominant tree species are used as stratified variables, indicating that the stratified sampling effect is the best when the dominant tree species are used.

     

/

返回文章
返回