Fig. 2: Percentage of intervention studies with different study designs in the biodiversity-conservation and social-science literature. | Nature Communications

Fig. 2: Percentage of intervention studies with different study designs in the biodiversity-conservation and social-science literature.

From: Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

Fig. 2

Intervention studies from the biodiversity-conservation literature were screened from the Conservation Evidence database (n=4260 studies) and studies from the social-science literature were screened from 32 Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews (n=1009 studies – note studies excluded by these reviews based on their study design were still counted). Percentages for the social-science literature were calculated for each systematic review (blue data points) and then averaged across all 32 systematic reviews (blue bars and black vertical lines represent mean and 95% Confidence Intervals, respectively). Percentages for the biodiversity-conservation literature are absolute values (shown as green bars) calculated from the entire Conservation Evidence database (after excluding any reviews). Source data are provided as a Source Data file. BA before-after, CI control-impact, BACI before-after-control-impact, R-BACI randomised BACI, R-CI randomised CI.

Back to article page