%0 Journal Article
%T Implications of sampling design and sample size for national carbon accounting systems
%A Michael K£¿hl
%A Andrew Lister
%A Charles T Scott
%A Thomas Baldauf
%A Daniel Plugge
%J Carbon Balance and Management
%D 2011
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/1750-0680-6-10
%X We compared the cost-efficiency of four different sampling design alternatives (simple random sampling, regression estimators, stratified sampling, 2-phase sampling with regression estimators) that have been proposed in the scope of REDD. Three of the design alternatives provide for a combination of in-situ and earth-observation data. Under different settings of remote sensing coverage, cost per field plot, cost of remote sensing imagery, correlation between attributes quantified in remote sensing and field data, as well as population variability and the percent standard error over total survey cost was calculated. The cost-efficiency of forest carbon stock assessments is driven by the sampling design chosen. Our results indicate that the cost of remote sensing imagery is decisive for the cost-efficiency of a sampling design. The variability of the sample population impairs cost-efficiency, but does not reverse the pattern of cost-efficiency of the individual design alternatives.Our results clearly indicate that it is important to consider cost-efficiency in the development of forest carbon stock assessments and the selection of remote sensing techniques. The development of MRV-systems for REDD need to be based on a sound optimization process that compares different data sources and sampling designs with respect to their cost-efficiency. This helps to reduce the uncertainties related with the quantification of carbon stocks and to increase the financial benefits from adopting a REDD regime.In the 1990's tropical deforestation was estimated to cause approximately 20 percent of the global anthropogenic carbon emissions [1]. Between 1997 and 2006, deforestation, forest degradation and peatland fires contributed between 8 and 20 percent to the global anthropogenic carbon emissions [2]. FAO [3] estimated an annual loss of carbon stocks in forest biomass of 0.5 Gt between 1990 and 2010, which is considered to be mainly a result of tropical deforestation. At their 16th mee
%U http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/6/1/10