↓ Skip to main content

Avoiding treatment bias of REDD+ monitoring by sampling with partial replacement

Overview of attention for article published in Carbon Balance and Management, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Avoiding treatment bias of REDD+ monitoring by sampling with partial replacement
Published in
Carbon Balance and Management, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13021-015-0020-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Köhl, Charles T Scott, Andrew J Lister, Inez Demon, Daniel Plugge

Abstract

Implementing REDD+ renders the development of a measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) system necessary to monitor carbon stock changes. MRV systems generally apply a combination of remote sensing techniques and in-situ field assessments. In-situ assessments can be based on 1) permanent plots, which are assessed on all successive occasions, 2) temporary plots, which are assessed only once, and 3) a combination of both. The current study focuses on in-situ assessments and addresses the effect of treatment bias, which is introduced by managing permanent sampling plots differently than the surrounding forests. Temporary plots are not subject to treatment bias, but are associated with large sampling errors and low cost-efficiency. Sampling with partial replacement (SPR) utilizes both permanent and temporary plots. We apply a scenario analysis with different intensities of deforestation and forest degradation to show that SPR combines cost-efficiency with the handling of treatment bias. Without treatment bias permanent plots generally provide lower sampling errors for change estimates than SPR and temporary plots, but do not provide reliable estimates, if treatment bias occurs, SPR allows for change estimates that are comparable to those provided by permanent plots, offers the flexibility to adjust sample sizes in the course of time, and allows to compare data on permanent versus temporary plots for detecting treatment bias. Equivalence of biomass or carbon stock estimates between permanent and temporary plots serves as an indication for the absence of treatment bias while differences suggest that there is evidence for treatment bias. SPR is a flexible tool for estimating emission factors from successive measurements. It does not entirely depend on sample plots that are installed at the first occasion but allows for the adjustment of sample sizes and placement of new plots at any occasion. This ensures that in-situ samples provide representative estimates over time. SPR offers the possibility to increase sampling intensity in areas with high degradation intensities or to establish new plots in areas where permanent plots are lost due to deforestation. SPR is also an ideal approach to mitigate concerns about treatment bias.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 9 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,973,067
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Carbon Balance and Management
#56
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,053
of 264,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbon Balance and Management
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them