Measurement and Meaningfulness in Conservation Science

Measurement and Meaningfulness in Conservation Science Abstract: Incomplete databases often require conservation scientists to estimate data either through expert judgment or other scoring, rating, and ranking procedures. At the same time, ecosystem complexity has led to the use of increasingly sophisticated algorithms and mathematical models to aid in conservation theorizing, planning, and decision making. Understanding the limitations imposed by the scales of measurement of conservation data is important for the development of sound conservation theory and policy. In particular, biodiversity valuation methods, systematic conservation planning algorithms, geographic information systems (GIS), and other conservation metrics and decision‐support tools, when improperly applied to estimated data, may lead to conclusions based on numerical artifact rather than empirical evidence. The representational theory of measurement is described here, and the description includes definitions of the key concepts of scale, scale type, and meaningfulness. Representational measurement is the view that measurement entails the faithful assignment of numbers to empirical entities. These assignments form scales that are organized into a hierarchy of scale types. A statement involving scales is meaningful if its truth value is invariant under changes of scale within scale type. I apply these concepts to three examples of measurement practice in the conservation literature. The results of my analysis suggest that conservation scientists do not always investigate the scale type of estimated data and hence may derive results that are not meaningful. Recognizing the complexity of observation and measurement in conservation biology, and the constraints that measurement theory imposes, the examples are accompanied by suggestions for informal estimation of the scale type of conservation data and for conducting meaningful analysis and synthesis of this information. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Measurement and Meaningfulness in Conservation Science

Conservation Biology, Volume 20 (6) – Dec 1, 2006

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/wiley/measurement-and-meaningfulness-in-conservation-science-nl9yHmb5QK
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
D.O.I.
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00531.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract: Incomplete databases often require conservation scientists to estimate data either through expert judgment or other scoring, rating, and ranking procedures. At the same time, ecosystem complexity has led to the use of increasingly sophisticated algorithms and mathematical models to aid in conservation theorizing, planning, and decision making. Understanding the limitations imposed by the scales of measurement of conservation data is important for the development of sound conservation theory and policy. In particular, biodiversity valuation methods, systematic conservation planning algorithms, geographic information systems (GIS), and other conservation metrics and decision‐support tools, when improperly applied to estimated data, may lead to conclusions based on numerical artifact rather than empirical evidence. The representational theory of measurement is described here, and the description includes definitions of the key concepts of scale, scale type, and meaningfulness. Representational measurement is the view that measurement entails the faithful assignment of numbers to empirical entities. These assignments form scales that are organized into a hierarchy of scale types. A statement involving scales is meaningful if its truth value is invariant under changes of scale within scale type. I apply these concepts to three examples of measurement practice in the conservation literature. The results of my analysis suggest that conservation scientists do not always investigate the scale type of estimated data and hence may derive results that are not meaningful. Recognizing the complexity of observation and measurement in conservation biology, and the constraints that measurement theory imposes, the examples are accompanied by suggestions for informal estimation of the scale type of conservation data and for conducting meaningful analysis and synthesis of this information.

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Dec 1, 2006

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off