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

  • Edwin Pynegar
  • , Hollie Booth
  • , Hugh Doulton
  • , Paul J. Ferraro
  • , Misbahou Mohamed
  • , O. Sarobidy Rakotonarivo
  • , Julia P.G. Jones*
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere70029
Number of pages17
JournalConservation Science and Practice
Volume7
Issue number11
Early online date17 Apr 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Funding

This work was primarily funded by a grant from the Darwin Initiative Innovation Grant to Bangor University, the University of Oxford, and Dahari (DARNV004). Booth acknowledges the Darwin grant 30-008. Ferraro acknowledges support from USDA's National Institute for Food and Agriculture (#2019-67023-29854). Rakotonarivo acknowledges funding from the European Union (grant no. DCI-PANAF/2020/420-028), through the African Research Initiative for Scientific Excellence (ARISE) pilot program implemented by the African Academy of Sciences with support from the European Commission and the African Union Commission. Jones acknowledges the Prince Bernhard Chair foundation. Jones, Doulton, Pynegar, and Mohamed are all directly involved in the Dahari RCT, Booth and Ferraro are involved in the KUL RCT, and Rakotonarivo is involved in the Mitsilo RCT.

FundersFunder number
Darwin InitiativeDARNV004
Darwin Initiative Innovation Grant to Bangor University30-008
Darwin grant2019-67023-29854
USDA's National Institute for Food and AgricultureDCI-PANAF/2020/420-028
European Union
African Research Initiative for Scientific Excellence (ARISE) pilot program
European Commission
African Union Commission
Prince Bernhard Chair foundation

    Keywords

    • causal inference
    • counterfactual
    • experiment
    • impact evaluation
    • incentive-based conservation

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'RCTs in the wild: Designing and implementing conservation programs as randomized control trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this