Observer variation in field assessments of vegetation condition: Implications for biodiversity conservation

Summary  Uncertainty in assessments of vegetation condition that are used to inform land management and planning decisions for biodiversity conservation in Australia may lead to unexpected outcomes, including loss of biodiversity. This study investigates observer error in field estimates of vegetation attributes, one component of uncertainty in assessments of vegetation condition. Ten observers conducted vegetation condition assessments using two assessment protocols (BioMetric and Habitat Hectares) on 20 sites in a grassy woodland community. Observers’ estimates varied substantially across multiple scoring categories for all vegetation attributes on almost all sites. Across all sites, the average coefficient of variation in total vegetation condition scores was 15–18% for both protocols, with a maximum of 60%. The primary cause of variation in total vegetation condition scores was random error in raw estimates of vegetation attributes, although sensitivity of some highly weighted attributes to error exacerbated variation in some cases. Observers generally agreed on the total scores and ranks of highly degraded (pasture) sites, but were less consistent on other sites. Rank correlations between pairs of observers were stronger for Habitat Hectares, suggesting BioMetric may be slightly more sensitive to observer error. It is recommended that: (i) research is undertaken into methods for reducing observer error; (ii) review is made of the sensitivity of index scoring structures to observer error; (iii) field observers estimate uncertainty around point estimates of vegetation condition; and, (iv) decision-makers explicitly incorporate uncertainty into the decision-making processes and aim for outcomes that are robust to this uncertainty.

[1]  C. Fernández-Quintanilla,et al.  An assessment of the accuracy and consistency of human perception of weed cover , 2010 .

[2]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Reproducibility of species lists, visual cover estimates and frequency methods for recording high‐mountain vegetation , 2010 .

[3]  Fiona Fidler,et al.  Reducing Overconfidence in the Interval Judgments of Experts , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others' opinions. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  B. Newell,et al.  The Effectiveness of Feedback in Multiple-Cue Probability Learning , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Stefan M. Herzog,et al.  The Wisdom of Many in One Mind , 2009, Psychological science.

[7]  Philip Gibbons,et al.  An operational method to assess impacts of land clearing on terrestrial biodiversity , 2009 .

[8]  Amy J. Symstad,et al.  Precision, Repeatability, and Efficiency of Two Canopy-Cover Estimate Methods in Northern Great Plains Vegetation , 2008 .

[9]  David Cheal Repeatability of cover estimates , 2008 .

[10]  Daniel L. Schmoldt,et al.  Expert panel assessment of attributes for natural variability benchmarks for biodiversity , 2007 .

[11]  Claudia González-Vallejo,et al.  Aligning confidence with accuracy: revisiting the role of feedback. , 2007, Acta psychologica.

[12]  R. Chevalier,et al.  Are Plant Censuses Carried Out on Small Quadrats More Reliable than on Larger Ones? , 2007, Plant Ecology.

[13]  Philip Gibbons,et al.  An overview of methods used to assess vegetation condition at the scale of the site , 2006 .

[14]  I. Oliver,et al.  The NSW Environmental Services Scheme: Results for the biodiversity benefits index, lessons learned, and the way forward , 2005 .

[15]  Göran Ståhl,et al.  Surveyor consistency in presence/absence sampling for monitoring vegetation in a boreal forest , 2005 .

[16]  Neil Thomason,et al.  Still Much to Learn About Confidence Intervals , 2005, Psychological science.

[17]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  When 90% confidence intervals are 50% certain: on the credibility of credible intervals , 2005 .

[18]  Andrew N. Gray,et al.  Repeatability and implementation of a forest vegetation indicator , 2005 .

[19]  M. McCarthy,et al.  Overcoming bias in ground-based surveys of hollow-bearing trees using double-sampling , 2004 .

[20]  Joshua Klayman,et al.  Overconfidence in interval estimates. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  D. J. Helm,et al.  Reproducibility of vegetation cover estimates in south-central Alaska forests , 2004 .

[22]  F. Bolger,et al.  The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions , 2004 .

[23]  James Surowiecki The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations Doubleday Books. , 2004 .

[24]  L. Klimeš,et al.  Scale-dependent variation in visual estimates of grassland plant cover , 2003 .

[25]  David Cheal,et al.  Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The 'habitat hectares' approach , 2003 .

[26]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  A TAXONOMY AND TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY FOR ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY , 2002 .

[27]  Brean W. Duncan,et al.  SETTING RELIABILITY BOUNDS ON HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES , 2001 .

[28]  Hees,et al.  Ocular estimates of understory vegetation structure in a closed Picea glauca/Betula papyrifera forest , 2000 .

[29]  J. Hellmann,et al.  BIAS, PRECISION, AND ACCURACY OF FOUR MEASURES OF SPECIES RICHNESS , 1999 .

[30]  Qiming Zhou,et al.  On the ground estimation of vegetation cover in Australian rangelands , 1998 .

[31]  S. Bråkenhielm,et al.  Comparison of field methods in vegetation monitoring , 1995 .

[32]  P. George Benson,et al.  The effects of feedback and training on the performance of probability forecasters , 1992 .

[33]  Jan Lepš,et al.  How reliable are our vegetation analyses , 1992 .

[34]  B. McCune,et al.  The Trade-off between Species Capture and Quantitative Accuracy in Ecological Inventory of Lichens and Bryophytes in Forests in Montana , 1992 .

[35]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Self-regulation through goal setting , 1991 .

[36]  M. Doherty,et al.  Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. , 1989 .

[37]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[38]  M. Morrison,et al.  On measuring bird habitat: influence of observer variability and sample size , 1987 .

[39]  Jay E. Anderson,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS FOR ESTIMATING PLANT COVER , 1987 .

[40]  K. A. Kennedy,et al.  SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE USE OF VISUAL ESTIMATES OF PLANT COVER IN BIOMONITORING , 1987 .

[41]  David Mazursky,et al.  When Feedback is Ignored: Disutility of Outcome Feedback , 1984 .

[42]  J. M. Sykes,et al.  USE OF VISUAL COVER ASSESSMENTS AS QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATORS OF SOME BRITISH WOODLAND TAXA , 1983 .

[43]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Scoring-rule feedback and the overconfidence syndrome in subjective probability forecasting , 1982 .

[44]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Training for calibration. , 1980 .

[45]  B. Brehmer In one word: Not from experience. , 1980 .

[46]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[47]  D. H. Knight,et al.  Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology , 1974 .

[48]  A. D. Smith,et al.  A Study of the Reliability of Range Vegatation Estimates , 1944 .

[49]  J. F. Hope-Simpson On the errors in the ordinary use of subjective frequency estimations in grassland. , 1940 .