coefficients of variation ranking based on the state’s relative variability and importance to the national major crop estimates, and (5) potential improvement using the
CDL. The order in which the state area frames are revised is based on their ranking
score. The nine states selected for revision had the highest nine scores (Cotter et al.
2010; Davies et al. 2014).
Fig. 14.2 (a) identifies Arizona (AZ), Georgia (GA), Ohio (OH), Oklahoma (OK), and Virginia
(VA), which were selected as the study areas for the traditional and automated area frame
stratification comparison. Figure 14.2 (b) identifies Alabama (AL), Arizona (AZ), Georgia (GA),
Nebraska (NE), New Mexico (NM), North Carolina (NC), Oklahoma (OK), South Dakota (SD) and
Wisconsin (WI), which were selected to evaluate the impact of the integration of the automated and
traditional stratification methods
274
C. G. Boryan and Z. Yang
CDL. The order in which the state area frames are revised is based on their ranking
score. The nine states selected for revision had the highest nine scores (Cotter et al.
2010; Davies et al. 2014).
Fig. 14.2 (a) identifies Arizona (AZ), Georgia (GA), Ohio (OH), Oklahoma (OK), and Virginia
(VA), which were selected as the study areas for the traditional and automated area frame
stratification comparison. Figure 14.2 (b) identifies Alabama (AL), Arizona (AZ), Georgia (GA),
Nebraska (NE), New Mexico (NM), North Carolina (NC), Oklahoma (OK), South Dakota (SD) and
Wisconsin (WI), which were selected to evaluate the impact of the integration of the automated and
traditional stratification methods
274
C. G. Boryan and Z. Yang