Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 295–309 | Cite as

The Accuracy of Forest Damage Assessments – Experiences from Sweden



In this article the consistency of forest damageassessments on conifer trees is analysed, by usingdifferent methods in estimating the accuracy inassessments of defoliation and discolouration. The dataoriginate from control surveys in the Swedish nationalforest damage survey, as well as from national andinternational training courses. Standard deviation ofdifferences in the assessment of defoliation on singletrees is found to be about 10% units for Norway spruceand 8.5% for Scots pine. Problems in correctly assessingdamaged Scots pine trees and discoloured Norway sprucetrees are revealed by measures of agreement (Kappastatistic). Results from several years of nationaltraining courses indicate that, on an average, theobserver teams do not significantly differ from a nationalstandard, but significant differences between observerteams are found. The presented estimates indicate asubstantial within observer error compared to the betweenobserver error. The results indicate that the long-termdevelopment of forest damage, rather than short-termfluctuations, is the most important information fromthese kinds of inventories.

defoliation discolouration forestdamage kappa statistic observer error 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aamlid, D. and Horntvedt, R.: 1997, ‘Intercalibration Course for Northern Europe on Crown Condition Assessment’, inD. Aamlid (ed.), Crown Condition Assessment in the Nordic Countries. Proceedings from an Intercalibration Coarse for Northern Europe on Crown Condition Assessment, 24–25 June 1997, Norway, Aktuelt fra Skogforsk. Norwegian Institute of Forest Research, Report No. 10/97, pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, J.: 1960, ‘A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales’, Educ. Psych. Measure. 20, 37–46.Google Scholar
  3. Czaplewski, R. L.:1977, ‘Variance Approximations for Assessments of Classification Accuracy’, USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM—316.Google Scholar
  4. Dobbertin, M., Landmann, G., Pierrat, J. C. and Müller-Edzards, C.: 1997, ‘Quality of Crown Condition Data’, in C. Müller#x2014;Edzards, W. De Vries and J. W. Erisman (eds), Ten Years of Monitoring Forest Condition in Europe #x2014; Studies on Temporal Development, Spatial Distribution and Impacts of Natural and Anthropogenic Stress Factors, EC#x2014;UN/ECE, Brussels and Geneva, pp. 7–22.Google Scholar
  5. Ferretti, M., Bussotti, F., Cenni, E. and Cozzi, A.: 1999, ‘Implementation of quality assurance procedures in the Italian programs of forest condition monitoring’, Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 116, 371–376.Google Scholar
  6. Fleiss, J. L., Cohen, J. and Everitt, B. S.: 1969, ‘Large sample standarderrors of kappa and weighted kappa’, Psych. Bull. 72, 597–603.Google Scholar
  7. Ghosh, S. and Innes, J. L.: 1995, ‘Combining field and controlTeam Assessments to obtain error estimates for surveys of crown condition’, Scand. J. Forest Res. 10, 264–270.Google Scholar
  8. Ghosh, S., Innes, J. L.and Hoffmann, C.: 1995, ‘Observer variation as a source of error in assessments of crown condition through time’, Forest Sci. 41, 235–254.Google Scholar
  9. Innes, J. L.: 1988, ‘Forest health surveys: Problems in assessing observer objectivity’, Can. J. Forest Res. 18,560–565.Google Scholar
  10. Innes, J. L.: 1993, Forest Health: It’s Assessment and Status, CAB International, Wallingford, U.K., 677 p.Google Scholar
  11. Innes, J.L., Landmann, G. and Mettendorf, B.: 1993, ‘Consistency of observations of forest tree defoliation in three European countries’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 25, 29–40.Google Scholar
  12. Köhl, M.: 1991, ‘Waldschadensinventuren: Mögliche Ursachen der Variation der Nadel-’Blattverlustschätzung zwischen Beobachtern und Folgerungen für Kontrollaufnahmen’, Allgemeine Forst-und Jagdzeitung 162, 210–221.Google Scholar
  13. Köhl, M.: 1993, ‘Forest Health Monitoring: Crown Transparency Assessment and Observer Bias’, in M. Köhl and G. Z. Gertner (eds),Statistical Methods, Mathematics and Computers, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf, pp. 149–163.Google Scholar
  14. Müller-Edzards, C., De Vries, W. and Erisman, J. W. (eds): 1997, ‘Ten Years of Monitoring Forest Condition in Europe — studies ontemporal development, Spatial Distribution and impacts of natural and anthropogenic stress factors’, EC-UN/ECE, Brussels and Geneva, 386 p.Google Scholar
  15. Solberg, S.: 1999, ‘Crown density assessment, control surveys and reproducibility’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 56, 75–96.Google Scholar
  16. Strand, G.#x2014;H.: 1996, ‘Detection of observer bias in ongoing forest health monitoringprogrammes#x2019;, Can. J. Forest Res. 26, 1692–1696.Google Scholar
  17. Stoen, O. G., Eriksen, R. and Nelleman, C.: 1997, ‘National Monitoring of Forest Vitality in Norway #x2014; Control 1995 and 1996’,Norwegian Institute of Land Inventory, NIJOS#x2014;report no. 9/97, 78 p.Google Scholar
  18. UN/ECE.: 1998, ‘Manual on methods and criteria forharmonized sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis of the effects of air pollution on forests’, 4th ed., Programme Coordinating Centre in Federal Research Centre for Forestry Products (BFH), Hamburg.Google Scholar
  19. Wulff, S.: 1996, ‘Forest Condition in Sweden 1994’, inU. Söderberg and S. Wulff (eds), Monitoring Forest Damage in the Nordic Countries. Selected Proceedings from Meeting in the SNS-ad hoc Group on Monitoring of Forest Damage, 9–10 May 1995, Umeå, Sweden. SLU, Department of Forest Resource Management and Geomatics, Report 4, 1996, pp. 37–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Resource Management and GeomaticsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations