Results for “Random Error Variance” — Page 4

NASA NTRS2019

Assessing Uncertainties of a Geophysical Approach to Estimate Surface Fine Particulate Matter Distributions from Satellite-Observed Aerosol Optical Depth

Health impact analyses are increasingly tapping the broad spatial coverage of satellite aerosol optical depth (AOD) products to estimate human exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5). We use a forward geophysical approach to derive ground-level PM2.5 distributions from satellite AOD at 1 km2(exp) resolution for 2011 over the northeastern US by applying relationships between surface PM2.5 and column AOD (calculated offline from speciated mass distributions) from a regional air quality model (CMAQ; 12×12 km2(exp) horizontal resolution). Seasonal average satellite-derived PM2.5 reveals more spatial detail and best captures observed surface PM2.5 levels during summer. At the daily scale, however, satellite-derived PM2.5 is not only subject to measurement uncertainties from satellite instruments, but more importantly to uncertainties in the relationship between surface PM2.5 and column AOD. Using 11 ground-based AOD measurements within 10 km of surface PM2.5 monitors, we show that uncertainties in modeled PM2.5∕AOD can explain more than 70 % of the spatial and temporal variance in the total uncertainty in daily satellite-derived PM2.5 evaluated at PM2.5 monitors. This finding implies that a successful geophysical approach to deriving daily PM2.5 from satellite AOD requires model skill at capturing day-to-day variations in PM2.5∕AOD relationships. Overall, we estimate that uncertainties in the modeled PM2.5∕AOD lead to an error of 11 µg m−3(exp) in daily satellite-derived PM2.5, and uncertainties in satellite AOD lead to an error of 8 µg m−3(exp). Using multi-platform ground, airborne, and radiosonde measurements, we show that uncertainties of modeled PM2.5∕AOD are mainly driven by model uncertainties in aerosol column mass and speciation, while model representation of relative humidity and aerosol vertical profile shape contributes some systematic biases. The parameterization of aerosol optical properties, which determines the mass extinction efficiency, also contributes to random uncertainty, with the size distribution being the largest source of uncertainty and hygroscopicity of inorganic salt the second largest. Future efforts to reduce uncertainty in geophysical approaches to derive surface PM2.5 from satellite AOD would thus benefit from improving model representation of aerosol vertical distribution and aerosol optical properties, to narrow uncertainty in satellite-derived PM2.5.

aerosol optical depth↗

NASA NTRS2013

Comparison of Precision of Biomass Estimates in Regional Field Sample Surveys and Airborne LiDAR-Assisted Surveys in Hedmark County, Norway

Airborne scanning LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) has emerged as a promising tool to provide auxiliary data for sample surveys aiming at estimation of above-ground tree biomass (AGB), with potential applications in REDD forest monitoring. For larger geographical regions such as counties, states or nations, it is not feasible to collect airborne LiDAR data continuously ("wall-to-wall") over the entire area of interest. Two-stage cluster survey designs have therefore been demonstrated by which LiDAR data are collected along selected individual flight-lines treated as clusters and with ground plots sampled along these LiDAR swaths. Recently, analytical AGB estimators and associated variance estimators that quantify the sampling variability have been proposed. Empirical studies employing these estimators have shown a seemingly equal or even larger uncertainty of the AGB estimates obtained with extensive use of LiDAR data to support the estimation as compared to pure field-based estimates employing estimators appropriate under simple random sampling (SRS). However, comparison of uncertainty estimates under SRS and sophisticated two-stage designs is complicated by large differences in the designs and assumptions. In this study, probability-based principles to estimation and inference were followed. We assumed designs of a field sample and a LiDAR-assisted survey of Hedmark County (HC) (27,390 km2), Norway, considered to be more comparable than those assumed in previous studies. The field sample consisted of 659 systematically distributed National Forest Inventory (NFI) plots and the airborne scanning LiDAR data were collected along 53 parallel flight-lines flown over the NFI plots. We compared AGB estimates based on the field survey only assuming SRS against corresponding estimates assuming two-phase (double) sampling with LiDAR and employing model-assisted estimators. We also compared AGB estimates based on the field survey only assuming two-stage sampling (the NFI plots being grouped in clusters) against corresponding estimates assuming two-stage sampling with the LiDAR and employing model-assisted estimators. For each of the two comparisons, the standard errors of the AGB estimates were consistently lower for the LiDAR-assisted designs. The overall reduction of the standard errors in the LiDAR-assisted estimation was around 40-60% compared to the pure field survey. We conclude that the previously proposed two-stage model-assisted estimators are inappropriate for surveys with unequal lengths of the LiDAR flight-lines and new estimators are needed. Some options for design of LiDAR-assisted sample surveys under REDD are also discussed, which capitalize on the flexibility offered when the field survey is designed as an integrated part of the overall survey design as opposed to previous LiDAR-assisted sample surveys in the boreal and temperate zones which have been restricted by the current design of an existing NFI.

Comparison↗