Affiliation:
1. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC, USA
2. National Institute of Statistical Sciences, Washington, DC, USA
3. Smithfield Foods Inc., Tar Heel, NC, USA
Abstract
As is the case for many National Statistics Institutes, the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has observed dwindling survey response rates, and the requests for more information at finer temporal and spatial scales have led to increased response burdens. Non-survey data are becoming increasingly abundant and accessible. Consequently, NASS is exploring the potential to complete some or all of a survey record using non-survey data, which would reduce respondent burden and potentially lead to increased response rates. In this paper, the focus is on a large set of records associated with potential farms, which are operations with undetermined farm status (farm/non-farm) and are referred to here as operations with unknown status (OUS). Although they usually have some agriculture, most OUS records are eventually classified as non-farms. Those OUS that are classified as farms tend to have higher proportions of producers from under-represented groups compared to other records. Determining the probability that an OUS record is a farm is an important step in the imputation process. The OUS records that responded to the 2017 U.S. Census of Agriculture were used to develop models to predict farm status using multiple data sources. Evaluated models include bootstrap random forest (RF), logistic regression (LR), neural network (NN), and support vector machine (SVM). Although the SVM had the best outcomes for three of the five metrics, the sensitivity for identifying farms was the lowest (13.8%). The NN model had a sensitivity of 80.5%, which was substantially higher than the other models, and its specificity of 45.3% was the lowest of all models. Because sensitivity was the primary metric of interest and the NN performed reasonably well on the other metrics, the NN was selected as the preferred model.
Reference20 articles.
1. The end of the (research) world as we know it;Stedman;Understanding and coping with declining response rates to mail surveys. Society & Natural Resources.,2019
2. Johansson R, Effland A, Coble K. Falling response rates to USDA crop surveys: Why it matters. Farmdoc Daily. 2017 Jan 19; 7(9).
3. An assessment of pre-and within-season remotely sensed variables for forecasting corn and soybean yields in the United States;Johnson;Remote Sensing of Environment.,2014
4. Agricultural crop forecasting for large geographical areas;Young;Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.,2019
5. An overview of available crop growth and yield models for studies and assessments in agriculture;Di Paola;Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.,2016