Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T05:00:53.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chance and randomness in design versus model-based approaches to impact assessment: comments on Bulleri et al. (2007)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2008

ALLAN STEWART-OATEN
ALLAN STEWART-OATEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93110-9610USA
*
*Correspondence: Dr Allen Stewart-Oaten e-mail: stewart@lifesci.ucsb.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Bulleri et al. (2007) describe local environmental impacts as ‘assessed by comparing the disturbed site with one or more [unaffected] reference sites . . . [which] can be thought of as a random sample from a population of sites as in design-based approaches (Underwood 1992), or as a set of covariates correlated with the disturbed site as in model-based analyses (Stewart-Oaten & Bence 2001)’ (brackets added). This is misleading. These two approaches are not alternatives. The latter paper shows that reference sites are not essential and that the former paper's use of them is invalid.

Type
Comment
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 8 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Box, G.E.P. & Tiao, G.C. (1975) Intervention analysis with applications to economic and environmental problems. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70: 70–79.Google Scholar
Bulleri, F., Underwood, A.J. & Benedetti-Cecchi, L. (2007) The interpretation of ecological impacts in human-dominated environments. Environmental Conservation 34: 181–182.Google Scholar
Cox, D.R. & Reid, N. (2000) The Theory of the Design of Experiments. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Cressie, N.A.C. (1991) Statistics for Spatial Data. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Freedman, D.A. (2005) Statistical Models: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, J. (1855) On the Mode of Communication of Cholera. London: John Churchill. (Also at URL http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowbook.html; the natural experiment is in Part 3).Google Scholar
Stewart-Oaten, A. & Bence, J.R. (2001) Temporal and spatial variation in environmental impact assessment. Ecological Monographs 71: 305–339.Google Scholar
Underwood, A.J. (1992) Beyond BACI: the detection of environmental impacts on populations in the real, but variable, world. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 161: 145–178.Google Scholar