Dealing with false positive risk as an indicator of misperceived effectiveness of conservation interventions.
As human pressures on the environment continue to spread and intensify, effective conservation interventions are direly needed to prevent threats, reduce conflicts, and recover populations and landscapes in a liaison between science and conservation. It is practically important to discriminate betwe...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/f66e99ce871e4f9b91ad10e810eb1075 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | As human pressures on the environment continue to spread and intensify, effective conservation interventions are direly needed to prevent threats, reduce conflicts, and recover populations and landscapes in a liaison between science and conservation. It is practically important to discriminate between true and false (or misperceived) effectiveness of interventions as false perceptions may shape a wrong conservation agenda and lead to inappropriate decisions and management actions. This study used the false positive risk (FPR) to estimate the rates of misperceived effectiveness of electric fences (overstated if reported as effective but actually ineffective based on FPR; understated otherwise), explain their causes and propose recommendations on how to improve the representation of true effectiveness. Electric fences are widely applied to reduce damage to fenced assets, such as livestock and beehives, or increase survival of fenced populations. The analysis of 109 cases from 50 publications has shown that the effectiveness of electric fences was overstated in at least one-third of cases, from 31.8% at FPR = 0.2 (20% risk) to 51.1% at FPR = 0.05 (5% risk, true effectiveness). In contrast, understatement reduced from 23.8% to 9.5% at these thresholds of FPR. This means that truly effective applications of electric fences were only 48.9% of all cases reported as effective, but truly ineffective cases were 90.5%, implying that the effectiveness of electric fences was heavily overstated. The main reasons of this bias were the lack of statistical testing or improper reporting of test results (63.3% of cases) and interpretation of marginally significant results (p < 0.05, p < 0.1 and p around 0.05) as indicators of effectiveness (10.1%). In conclusion, FPR is an important tool for estimating true effectiveness of conservation interventions and its application is highly recommended to disentangle true and false effectiveness for planning appropriate conservation actions. Researchers are encouraged to calculate FPR, publish its constituent statistics (especially treatment and control sample sizes) and explicitly provide test results with p values. It is suggested to call the effectiveness "true" if FPR < 0.05, "suggestive" if 0.05 ≤ FPR < 0.2 and "false" if FPR ≥ 0.2. |
|---|