Matching in the wild: promise and pitfalls of propensity score matching for field ecology

Field ecologists often rely on observational data to understand the impact of environmental stressors and management interventions on natural systems. Natural and anthropogenic events (e.g. wildfires, protected areas, nutrient deposition) do not occur randomly in space, however, which can introduce bias into observational studies—which we refer to as causal selection bias. Field study designs that ignore the non-random occurrence of stressors may yield biased estimates of stressor effects on ecosystems. Matching methods commonly used in economics, political science and epidemiology offer a powerful framework for controlling for causal selection bias by identifying more comparable treatment and control sites. Although these methods are increasingly used in conservation, they are rarely used in ecological field-based studies. Here we review how Propensity Score Matching (PSM) can improve field sampling designs in ecology and strengthen causal identification of stressor effects. Then we apply this approach to a case study examining wildfire effects on forest recovery in California. We conclude with practical recommendations for implementing PSM to improve causal identification of ecological change, which is particularly important for developing effective management interventions.