Standard Standard

Quantifying uncertainty about how interventions are assigned would improve impact evaluation in conservation: reply to Rasolofoson 2022. / Gordon Jones, Julia Patricia; Barnes, Megan; Eklund, Johanna et al.
In: Conservation Biology, 01.12.2022.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

HarvardHarvard

APA

Gordon Jones, J. P., Barnes, M., Eklund, J., Ferraro, P. J., Geldmann, J., Oldekop, J. A., & Schleicher, J. (2022). Quantifying uncertainty about how interventions are assigned would improve impact evaluation in conservation: reply to Rasolofoson 2022. Conservation Biology, Article e14007. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14007

CBE

MLA

VancouverVancouver

Gordon Jones JP, Barnes M, Eklund J, Ferraro PJ, Geldmann J, Oldekop JA et al. Quantifying uncertainty about how interventions are assigned would improve impact evaluation in conservation: reply to Rasolofoson 2022. Conservation Biology. 2022 Dec 1;e14007. Epub 2022 Sept 30. doi: 10.1111/cobi.14007

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantifying uncertainty about how interventions are assigned would improve impact evaluation in conservation: reply to Rasolofoson 2022

AU - Gordon Jones, Julia Patricia

AU - Barnes, Megan

AU - Eklund, Johanna

AU - Ferraro, Paul J.

AU - Geldmann, Jonas

AU - Oldekop, Johan A.

AU - Schleicher, Judith

N1 - https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14007

PY - 2022/12/1

Y1 - 2022/12/1

KW - causal inference

KW - counterfactual

KW - hidden bias

KW - impact evaluation

KW - statistical matching

U2 - 10.1111/cobi.14007

DO - 10.1111/cobi.14007

M3 - Comment/debate

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

SN - 0888-8892

M1 - e14007

ER -