this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
32 points (100.0% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

22493 readers
2 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
32
ELI5: What does "a 73% average decline in wildlife populations since 1970" mean? (ourworldindata.org)
submitted 2 days ago by Artisian@lemmy.world to c/explainlikeimfive@lemmy.world
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I understand that it does not mean

this doesn’t mean 73% of populations are in decline; in fact, around half of the studied populations were in decline, while half were either increasing or stable.

Maybe I should ask why the LPI report uses such a weird number instead?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] threeonefour@piefed.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe I should ask why the LPI report uses such a weird number instead?

Take your population of 10,000 rhinos. It drops by 90% to 1,000. The next year it increases by 90% to 1,900. If you did a normal average of the changes, you'd get (-90%+90%)/2 = 0% change. That's a useless number because there has obviously been some major changes between the two years.

If you use a geometric average you'd get sqrt(0.1 × 1.9) ~= 0.436 or roughly a 56% average decrease. This is more meaningful than saying the average change was 0%.

However, you can't use that number to work out how many rhinos there are. It's used to measure an overall trend. If the average decrease gets smaller, it would mean more populations are increasing and less populations are decreasing. Overall, that's good. That's what the number is meant to be used for.

If the average decline next year is 68% then that'd mean we're doing something right because last year the average decline was 73%. What are we doing right? Which populations are better? Which are worse? You can't tell from the average. It's just a general marker of the overall trend.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

But if I take a population that dies out, any population that dies out, in my sample, then the geometric average becomes 100% loss. There are definitely cases where the geometric average also gives a weird answer.

(I'll also note that their headline number changes quite a bit year-to-year, as they expand the dataset and fiddle with how important they treat each part.)

I strongly agree with the base dataset - I just don't understand why this is the best indicator. If we care about total population, we could just compute with the sum. If we care about how many populations are stable/growing, those numbers are also easy to get from the same data.