<scp>RCTs</scp> in the wild: Designing and implementing conservation programs as randomized control trials

Abstract Experimental evaluation of environmental programs, including those aiming to conserve biodiversity, is rarer than those of social programs. However, there is growing interest in conducting such evaluations in conservation. Randomized control trials (RCTs), in which units are randomly assigned to receive one of two or more treatments, can avoid biases associated with observational designs and provide reliable estimation of program effectiveness. We present a typology of conservation RCTs, which differentiates between interventions that have a direct impact on biodiversity and those where the impact is mediated through changes in human behavior. With a focus on RCTs in behaviorally mediated conservation programs, which have received limited attention, we examine: (1) technical challenges (selection of randomization unit, avoiding interference between units, ensuring excludability and external validity) and solutions, (2) ethical and practical challenges, and (3) incentives that conservation organizations have to run RCTs. We end by summarizing the steps needed for good design and transparent reporting of RCTs. RCTs are not always appropriate, but we believe conservation science and practice would benefit from their wider application. By demystifying RCTs of conservation programs, we hope that this article will serve as a practical, grounded guide to foster broader adoption.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Science and Practice
Published
2025-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70029
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Economic and Environmental Valuation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
18.79

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

RCTs in the wild: Designing and implementing conservation programs as randomized control trials

Paul J. Ferraro, Edwin Pynegar, Hollie Booth, Julia P. G. Jones et al.
6 citations
Conservation Science and Practice
Economic and Environmental Valuation
18.79
article

RCTs in the wild: Designing and implementing conservation programs as randomized control trials

Paul J. Ferraro, Edwin Pynegar, Hollie Booth, Julia P. G. Jones, Hugh Doulton, O. Sarobidy Rakotonarivo, Misbahou Mohamed
article en
6 citations

Abstract

Abstract Experimental evaluation of environmental programs, including those aiming to conserve biodiversity, is rarer than those of social programs. However, there is growing interest in conducting such evaluations in conservation. Randomized control trials (RCTs), in which units are randomly assigned to receive one of two or more treatments, can avoid biases associated with observational designs and provide reliable estimation of program effectiveness. We present a typology of conservation RCTs, which differentiates between interventions that have a direct impact on biodiversity and those where the impact is mediated through changes in human behavior. With a focus on RCTs in behaviorally mediated conservation programs, which have received limited attention, we examine: (1) technical challenges (selection of randomization unit, avoiding interference between units, ensuring excludability and external validity) and solutions, (2) ethical and practical challenges, and (3) incentives that conservation organizations have to run RCTs. We end by summarizing the steps needed for good design and transparent reporting of RCTs. RCTs are not always appropriate, but we believe conservation science and practice would benefit from their wider application. By demystifying RCTs of conservation programs, we hope that this article will serve as a practical, grounded guide to foster broader adoption.

Conservation Science and PracticeVol. 7(11)
University of Antananarivo (MG), Johns Hopkins University (US), William Carey University (US), Bangor University (GB), Utrecht University (NL), University of Oxford (GB)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of Oxford, European Commission, Bangor University, African Academy of Sciences, African Union, African Union Commission, Darwin Initiative, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Economic and Environmental Valuation
18.79
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.