Abstract
ABSTRACT: Despite spending $115 billion per year on environmental actions in the United States, we have only a limited ability to describe the effectiveness of these expenditures. Moreover, after decades of such investments, we cannot accurately describe status and trends in the nation's aquatic ecosystems or even those in specific regions. Why? This situation has arisen in part because we have excluded the fundamental principles of probability designs that are widely used in other fields and we have often ignored direct measures of biota, the subjects of greatest concern. To demonstrate the results of ignoring these powerful statistical and biological tools, we present four case studies. These studies compare estimates of aquatic resource status derived from using (1) a probability‐based study design, often with biological measures of condition; and (2) a nonstatistical study design, often using chemical surrogates. In three of the four cases, the results derived from the nonstatistical perspective underestimate the degree of biological degradation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
