English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Evidence-based conservation is urgently needed to identify, apply and promote effective interventions for mitigation of threats and recovery of the natural environment. Estimation of intervention effectiveness is subject to robust study design and statistical analysis, and much progress is documented in these fields. In contrast, little is understood about the accuracy and biases (underestimation and overestimation) of different effectiveness metrics and how they are affected by sample size.    Methods  In this study, a dataset ( n  = 500 cases) consisting of random, positive, integer numbers was simulated to produce frequency input data for the 2 × 2 contingency table. For each case, three metrics of the relative risk, odds ratio and the magnitude of change were calculated, their disparity was estimated and the characteristics of treatment (with intervention) and control (without intervention) samples significantly affecting this disparity were studied by means of linear regression. Further, four case studies from different conservation interventions are provided to support the results.    Results  The study has shown that the relative risk and the magnitude of change produce identical estimates of intervention effectiveness only when treatment and control samples are equal, or when the number of target outcomes (e.g., number of livestock killed by predators) in treatment sample reaches zero. In other situations, the magnitude of change gives overestimates or underestimates, depending on relationships between treatment and control sample sizes. The table summarizing the conditions of equalities and biases between these two metrics is provided. These conditions are valid for both reduction-aimed interventions reducing negative target outcomes (e.g., livestock protection to reduce livestock losses to predators) and for addition-aimed interventions increasing positive target outcomes (e.g., establishment of protected areas to increase species presence). No significant effects on the odds ratio were found.    Conclusion  Researchers should set equal treatment and control sample sizes so that to produce identical estimates of intervention effectiveness by the relative risk and the magnitude of change. Otherwise, these estimates are biased if produced by the magnitude of change and the relative risk should be used instead. As setting equal treatment and control samples can be impractical, I encourage researchers and practitioners to use the relative risk in estimation of intervention effectiveness. This will not take additional efforts as both metrics are calculated from the same contingency table. Treatment and control sample sizes, along with their sub-samples affected and not by an intervention, should be explicitly reported by researchers to allow independent evaluation of intervention effectiveness. This approach can help obtain more accurate information on intervention effectiveness for making better decisions in conservation actions.

A comparison of common metrics used to quantify the effectiveness of conservation interventions