IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/usppxx/v6y2019i1p67-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistics, Probability, and a Failed Conservation Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Michael D. Collins

Abstract

Many sightings of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) have been reported during the past several decades, but nobody has managed to obtain the clear photo that is regarded as the standard form of evidence for documenting birds. Despite reports of sightings by teams of ornithologists working independently in Arkansas and Florida, doubts cast on the persistence of this iconic species have impeded the establishment of a meaningful conservation program. An analysis of the expected waiting time for obtaining a photo provides insights into why the policy of insisting upon ideal evidence has failed for this species. Concepts in statistics and probability are used to analyze video footage that was obtained during encounters with birds that were identified in the field as Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. One of the videos shows a series of events that are consistent with that species and are believed to be inconsistent with every other species of the region. Another video shows a large bird in flight with the distinctive wing motion of a large woodpecker. Only two large woodpeckers occur in the region, and the flap rate is about ten standard deviations greater than the mean flap rate of the Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Supplemental materials for this article are available online.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael D. Collins, 2019. "Statistics, Probability, and a Failed Conservation Policy," Statistics and Public Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 67-79, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:usppxx:v:6:y:2019:i:1:p:67-79
    DOI: 10.1080/2330443X.2019.1637802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/2330443X.2019.1637802
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/2330443X.2019.1637802?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:usppxx:v:6:y:2019:i:1:p:67-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uspp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.