...
首页> 外文期刊>Conservation Biology >Improving credibility and transparency of conservation impact evaluations through the partial identification approach
【24h】

Improving credibility and transparency of conservation impact evaluations through the partial identification approach

机译:通过部分识别方法提高保护影响评价的可信度和透明度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The fundamental challenge of evaluating the impact of conservation interventions is that researchers must estimate the difference between the outcome after an intervention occurred and what the outcome would have been without it (counterfactual). Because the counterfactual is unobservable, researchers must make an untestable assumption that some units (e.g., organisms or sites) that were not exposed to the intervention can be used as a surrogate for the counterfactual (control). The conventional approach is to make a point estimate (i.e., single number along with a confidence interval) of impact, using, for example, regression. Point estimates provide powerful conclusions, but in nonexperimental contexts they depend on strong assumptions about the counterfactual that often lack transparency and credibility. An alternative approach, called partial identification (PI), is to first estimate what the counterfactual bounds would be if the weakest possible assumptions were made. Then, one narrows the bounds by using stronger but credible assumptions based on an understanding of why units were selected for the intervention and how they might respond to it. We applied this approach and compared it with conventional approaches by estimating the impact of a conservation program that removed invasive trees in part of the Cape Floristic Region. Even when we used our largest PI impact estimate, the program's control costs were 1.4 times higher than previously estimated. PI holds promise for applications in conservation science because it encourages researchers to better understand and account for treatment selection biases; can offer insights into the plausibility of conventional point-estimate approaches; could reduce the problem of advocacy in science; might be easier for stakeholders to agree on a bounded estimate than a point estimate where impacts are contentious; and requires only basic arithmetic skills.
机译:评估保护性干预措施的影响所面临的根本挑战是,研究人员必须估算干预措施发生后的结果与没有干预措施后的结果之间的差异(反事实)。由于反事实是无法观察到的,因此研究人员必须做出无法检验的假设,即未进行干预的某些单位(例如生物或场所)可以用作反事实(对照)的替代品。常规方法是使用例如回归进行影响的点估计(即,单个数字以及置信区间)。点估计可提供有力的结论,但在非实验性背景下,它们取决于对反事实的强有力假设,而这些假设通常缺乏透明度和可信度。另一种方法叫做局部识别(PI),首先要进行估算,如果做出了最弱的假设,那么反事实的界限将是什么。然后,基于对为何选择干预单位以及他们可能如何做出反应的理解,使用更强但更可信的假设来缩小范围。我们通过估算保护计划的影响将其与传统方法进行了比较,该保护计划清除了佛得角海角部分地区的入侵树木。即使我们使用最大的PI影响估算,该程序的控制成本也比以前估算的高1.4倍。 PI有望在保护科学中应用,因为它鼓励研究人员更好地理解和解释治疗选择偏见。可以提供对传统点估计方法的合理性的见解;可以减少科学方面的倡导问题;对于利益相关者来说,在有限估计上达成共识可能比影响有争议的点估计更容易达成共识;并且只需要基本的算术技能。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号