Use of confidence intervals to demonstrate performance against forest management standards

Abstract

The objective of continuous improvement embedded in forest management standards relies on the capacity of management to respond appropriately to evidence of performance provided by monitoring. This evidence is rarely unequivocal. Under a null hypothesis of no effect, two kinds of errors in interpretation are possible-inferring an effect where none exists (Type I error) and inferring no effect when in fact one exists (Type II error). If the monitoring relates to possible improvement in growth or yield then a Type I error leads to false optimism and a Type II error to false pessimism. If monitoring concerns a potential environmental or social impact, a Type I error implies alarmism and a Type ..