Table 1. Stand characteristics of the ground truth data from the 1751 plots.
Minimum Maximum Average Stdev
Dgm (cm) 0.7 43.8 16.7 6.5
Hgm (m) 1.5 28.1 13.7 4.9
Age (a) 10 165 50.4 28.4
G (m2 ha–1) 0.2 67.5 17.5 9.1
V tot (m3 ha–1) 0.6 816.8 130.2 121.5
Tree species proportions
  Pine (%) 0 100 64 39.8
  Spruce (%) 0 100 18 33.7
  Broad-leaved trees (%) 0 100 18 27.0
Dgm = Diameter at breast height of the median basal area tree
Hgm = Height of the median basal area tree
Age = Age of the mean basal area tree
G = Basal area of the stand
V tot = Total volume of the stand
Table 2. Number of plots within site type classes (Hotanen et al. 2018; Laine et al. 2018) in the ground truth data.
Number
Very rich sites (OMaT) 8
Rich sites (OMT) 168
Damp sites (MT) 649
Sub-dry sites (VT) 694
Dry sites (CT) 213
Barren sites (ClT) 12
Rocky or sandy areas (Rsa) 7
1

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the generation of the erroneous tree species proportions for each study plot. In the chart, green data box denotes that stand characteristics introduced in the box is accurate, yellow denotes it is nearly accurate and red box denotes it is erroneous.

Table 3. The error matrix of Site type data (OMaT Very rich sites; OMT Rich sites; MT Damp sites; VT Sub-dry sites; CT Dry sites; ClT Barren sites; Rsa Rocky or sandy areas).
  Ground truth data
OMaT OMT MT VT CT ClT Rsa Total
Generated data OMaT 71 252 8 0 0 0 0 331
OMT 9 1164 894 7 0 0 0 2074
MT 0 259 4632 865 6 0 0 5762
VT 0 5 944 5226 273 1 0 6449
CT 0 0 12 835 1597 7 0 2451
ClT 0 0 0 7 249 96 13 365
Rsa 0 0 0 0 5 16 57 78
Total 80 1680 6490 6940 2130 120 70 17510
Table 4. RMSEs and biases of the tree species proportions with four remote sensing data sets (relative RMSEs and biases are in the parenthesis).
Data set Pine, m2 ha–1 (%) Spruce, m2 ha–1 (%) Broad-leaved trees, m2 ha–1 (%)
RMSE LIDAR2D 4.1 (39.1) 4.1 (102.5) 2.8 (91.4)
2D 5.1 (48.5) 4.9 (122.3) 3.3 (106.8)
3D2D 5.0 (48.0) 4.6 (114.8) 3.1 (98.4)
Satellite 6.2 (59.5) 5.4 (135.3) 3.7 (117.5)
Bias LIDAR2D –0.5 (–4.4) 0.1 (3.3) 0.3 (10.5)
2D –0.7 (–7.0) 0.3 (6.7) 0.5 (14.8)
3D2D –0.6 (–6,1) 0.3 (6.4) 0.4 (12.3)
Satellite –0.6 (–5.6) 0.3 (7.0) 0.3 (9.9)
Table 5. Species-wise and overall classification accuracies of dominant tree species of four remote sensing data sets without and with randomisation of classifications of tree species proportions.
Method Pine (%) Spruce (%) Broad-leaved trees (%) Total (%)
LIDAR2D 91.0 49.3 51.6 78.9
2D 91.4 41.9 38.1 76.0
3D2D 92.5 35.6 37.7 75.6
Satellite 87.5 41.6 35.8 72.9
Random, LIDAR2D 69.9 21.6 23.5 55.7
Random, 2D 68.3 22.3 23.5 54.7
Random, 3D2D 68.2 17.7 25.5 54.1
Random, satellite 68.3 22.0 17.7 53.8
Table 6. Mean NPV losses (€ ha–1) for four remote sensing data sets at different interest rates.
Interest rate LIDAR2D 2D 3D2D Satellite
1% 253.2 301.8 267.1 322.0
2% 183.0 202.5 204.0 215.7
3% 124.4 153.0 167.7 160.4
4% 104.1 126.2 141.4 134.8
5% 108.6 126.7 141.9 140.7
2

Fig. 2. Relative mean NPV losses at different interest rates.

Table 7. Proportions of the plots with NPV losses at different interest rates.
Plot proportions, %
Interest rate, % LIDAR2D 2D 3D2D Satellite
1 24.8 27.1 25.6 27.2
2 28.2 31.0 30.2 31.6
3 26.5 30.6 30.0 31.7
4 25.9 28.9 29.7 29.9
5 23.2 25.9 25.4 28.1
3

Fig. 3. Mean NPV losses of the plots at interest rate of 3% in relation to the site type of the plots, when species-wise proportion errors (LIDAR, 2D, 3D2D, Satellite) and site type errors (Site Type) are considered (OMaT Very rich sites; OMT Rich sites; MT Damp sites; VT Sub-dry sites; CT Dry sites; ClT Barren sites; Rsa Rocky or sandy areas).

4

Fig. 4. Mean NPV losses of the plots at interest rate of 3% in relation to the maturity of the stands within the plots, when species-wise proportion errors are considered.

Table 8. Mean losses of the randomised remote sensing inventory data sets and site type data for all plots and for plots with sub-optimal treatment proposals with each data set at interest rate of 3%. Proportions of the sub-optimally treated plots are in parenthesis.
Mean losses, all plots, € Mean losses, sub-optimally treated plots, €
(proportions in parenthesis)
Random, LIDAR2D 203.7 540.4 (35.9%)
Random, 2D 206.3 520.1 (37.9%)
Random, 3D2D 218.5 522.5 (39.6%)
Random, Satellite 211.0 519.8 (37.5%)
Random, Site Type 92.1 421.4