In nature conservation, figures such as «150 species become extinct every day» or «80 percent of biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous people» are widespread, as the NZZ am Sonntag recently wrote in an analysis, noting: ‘Such statements appear in UN reports, on protest banners and in scientific articles. They are often misleading and sometimes wrong. The sources of the figures are often questionable, as biologist Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares notes. In his report in the journal Nature, he reveals that the 80 per cent figure for indigenous areas has no scientific basis. There is no reliable data to support the statement.

This problem runs through the entire field of biodiversity research. Statistics are often unreliable because biology is a «dirty science», as Matthias Glaubrecht from the Leibniz Institute puts it, according to «NZZ am Sonntag». Figures that are often used for argumentation are often based on incomplete data sets or faulty assumptions. Often, many question marks remain.

What makes a good scientific study?

According to Quarks, good studies can be evaluated on the basis of clear criteria. First of all, the research question must be precisely formulated. A good study is also based on solid methods and a sufficient amount of data. Often, the results of studies with fewer than 20 participants or samples are applied to the whole world. But this is often where the problem lies, especially in biodiversity research, where comprehensive and precise data sets are rare. Many studies suffer from methodological weaknesses, insufficient replicability and selective data interpretation.

Another key point is the independence of research. Quarks mentions market research institutes and companies that pursue commercial interests with a study. In an ideologically charged field such as nature conservation, there is also a danger from other sides that science will be instrumentalised to support political or ideological goals. This can be seen, for example, from the fact that Fernández-Llamazares and his colleagues have been labelled «unethical» for their criticism of the 80 per cent figure. This clearly shows that a scientific debate often does not take place independently of political interests.

The Living Planet Index: an example of methodological problems

Another example is the Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures the decline in vertebrate populations. Since 1970, the number of these populations is said to have decreased by 73 per cent. The WWF has been using the index in its communications for years, thereby conveying a threatening scenario. But the numbers are misleading, as biologist Anna Toszögyova and her colleagues were able to show. Their alternative calculation led to significantly more moderate results. The decline in biodiversity was less drastic than indicated by the LPI, which was due to methodological errors in data collection. Not every study that is declared «scientific» really is.

The ideological misuse of numbers in nature conservation

Numbers have a strong persuasive power, especially in political debates. But if they are not based on solid scientific foundations, they do more harm than good. In the field of nature conservation, figures that are emotionally and politically charged are often used, but they are not always scientifically tenable. For example, the catchy slogan «30 per cent protected areas by 2030» is a clever political choice, but such figures and targets are rarely empirically based.

In view of the misuse of studies, it is all the more important to maintain the scientific basis of research. A good scientific study is comprehensible, methodologically sound and transparent in its results. However, it is precisely in nature conservation that figures are often used hastily and rarely critically questioned. The ideological misuse of science, especially in politically sensitive areas, remains a challenge that must be addressed through greater scientific integrity and open debate.