Blog Post 4: Sampling Strategies

My results for the simulated forest sampling are below. While the haphazard technique was the fastest, it’s overall accuracy as abysmal. I found it interesting that for the most common and least common species, the random sample was the actually the most accurate, while the systematic approach was the most accurate for both the second most common and second least common methods. With the systematic approach, the accuracy dropped as the species became less common. As mentioned, this didn’t prove true with the random sample however, which was a lot more random in its results as it’s nature would suggest.

In conclusion a systematic sampling approach in this setting may work the best if you know your target species is fairly common while a random approach may be the best method if you are unsure. Based on this experiment I would definitely try to avoid haphazard sampling if it can be avoided.

Systematic Area Based  –

Easter Hemlock – Actual – 469.9  Estimated – 524   Error –  12%

Sweet Birch – Actual – 117.5 Estimated – 136  Error –   16 %

Stripped Maple – Actual – 17.5 Estimated – 12  Error –   31 %

White Pine – Actual – 8.4 Estimated – 12  Error –   43%

 

Random –

Easter Hemlock – Actual – 469.9 Estimated – 487.5  Error –   4 %

Sweet Birch – Actual – 117.5 Estimated – 137.5  Error –   17%

Stripped Maple – Actual – 17.5 Estimated – 0  Error –   100 %

White Pine – Actual – 8.4 Estimated – 8.3  Error –   1 %

 

Haphazard

Easter Hemlock – Actual – 469.9 Estimated – 579.2  Error – 23%

Sweet Birch – Actual – 117.5 Estimated – 275  Error –   134%

Stripped Maple – Actual – 17.5 Estimated – 29.2  Error –   66 %

White Pine – Actual – 8.4 Estimated – 20.8  Error –   147 %