Is It Time for a New Paradigm in Biodiversity Monitoring? Lessons From Opinion Polling
Is It Time for a New Paradigm in Biodiversity Monitoring? Lessons From Opinion Polling
复制标题
现在是生物多样性监测新范式的时候了吗？
DOI：
10.1162/99608f92.707dff70
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Boyd R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boyd R
Bailey（2023）令人信服地论证了民意调查的范式转变。目前的范式是在（真正的）随机样本可用的基础上工作的，尽管事实上，非响应和非概率样本基本上已经成为历史。为了缓解这种紧张关系，当前的范式在加权非随机样本具有随机样本的有用属性的前提下纳入了权重调整。贝利写道，问题在于，加权和相关方法做出了强有力的假设，而这些假设在民意调查中是站不住脚的。读了贝利的文章，我被他的观点与我的工作——生物多样性监测——的相关性所震惊。尽管生物多样性监测员可以获得随机样本的情况很少，但普遍存在的非概率样本和对地点的不完全吸收（相当于民意调查中的无反应）意味着它们是例外，而不是规则。加权和其他调整不像在民意调查中那么常见，但当它们被使用时，它们的假设同样站不住脚。在这篇评论中，我扩展了这些观点，并提出了一个问题，即生物多样性监测是否像民意调查一样，是由于范式转变。
Bailey (2023) argues convincingly for a paradigm shift in opinion polling. The current paradigm works on the basis that (truly) random samples are available, despite the fact that nonresponse and nonprobability samples have essentially consigned them to history. To ease this tension, the current paradigm has incorporated weighting adjustments on the premise that weighted nonrandom samples possess the useful properties of random ones. The problem, Bailey writes, is that weighting and related methods make strong assumptions, assumptions that are untenable in a polling context.Reading Bailey’s article, I was struck by the relevance of his arguments to my line of work: biodiversity monitoring. Although there are rare cases where random samples are available to biodiversity monitors, the prevalence of nonprobability samples and incomplete uptake of sites (equivalent to nonresponse in polling) mean that they are the exception rather than the rule. Weighting and other adjustments are less common than in polling, but where they are used, their assumptions are similarly untenable. In this commentary, I expand on these points and pose the question of whether biodiversity monitoring, like polling, is due a paradigm shift.