| Abstract: | Conflicts between humans and mammalian predators are globally widespread and increasing, creating a long-lasting challenge for conservation and local livelihoods. Protection interventions, which are essential to conflict mitigation, should be based on solid evidence of effectiveness produced by robust study designs. Yet, it is unclear what study designs have been used in predator-targeted interventions and how they can be improved to provide best practices for replications. I examined how applications of five study designs (before-after, before-after-control-impact, control-impact, crossover i.e., the same randomly assigned study units acting as treatments and controls during alternating trials], and randomized controlled trial) have changed over time and how these changes are related to authors, predator species, countries, and intervention types (aversion, husbandry, mixed interventions, invasive management, lethal control, and noninvasive management). I applied multinomial regression modeling to 434 cases (28 predator species and 45 countries) from 244 studies published from 1955 to 2020. Study design was related only to intervention type. Less reliable before-after and control-impact studies were the most common (47.7% and 38.2% of cases, respectively), and their use increased over years as did all interventions. The contribution of the most robust before-after-control-impact (7.4%), randomized controlled trial (5.3%), and crossover designs (1.4%) remained minor over time. Crossover is suitable for aversion, most husbandry techniques, and a few other interventions, but crossover interventions also have the most limitations in terms of applicability. Randomized controlled trial is generally applicable, but impractical or inappropriate for some interventions, and before-after-control-impact appears to be the most widely applicable study design for predator-targeted interventions. |
