Content uploaded by Abha Joglekar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abha Joglekar on Sep 06, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
nature ecology & evolution
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4Perspective
Five lessons for avoiding failure when scaling
in conservation
Thomas Pienkowski 1,12 , Arundhati Jagadish 2,3,12 , Willow Battista 4,
Gloria Christelle Blaise 1,5, Alec Philip Christie 1,6,7, Matt Clark 1,
Antony Philip Emenyu8, Abha Joglekar 1, Kristian Steensen Nielsen 9,
Tom Powell 8, Thomas White10,11 & Morena Mills 1
Many attempts to scale conservation actions have failed to deliver their
intended benets, caused unintended harm or later been abandoned,
hampering eorts to bend the curve on biodiversity loss. Here we encourage
those calling for scaling to pause and reect on past scaling eorts, which
oer valuable lessons: the total impact of an action depends on both its
eectiveness and scalability; eectiveness can change depending on scale
for multiple reasons; feedback processes can change socio-ecological
conditions inuencing future adoption; and the drive to scale can
incentivize bad practices that undermine long-term outcomes. Cutting
across these themes is the recognition that monitoring scaling can enhance
evidence-informed adaptive management, reporting and research. We
draw on evidence and concepts from disparate elds, explore new linkages
between often isolated concepts and suggest strategies for practitioners,
policymakers and researchers. Reecting on these ve lessons may help in
the scaling of eective conservation actions in responsible ways to meet the
triple goals of reversing biodiversity loss, combating climate change and
supporting human wellbeing.
Nature would be worse off without conservation action
1
, but these
efforts have been inadequate to meet global biodiversity and climate
targets
2
. In response, there have been widespread commitments to
scaling conservation actions to bend the curve of biodiversity loss while
tackling climate change
3
. Simultaneously, efforts to scale conservation
actions must—at a minimum—abide by international human rights
and wellbeing agreements4. Ultimately, the scaling of conservation
actions must contribute to the triple goals of reversing biodiversity
loss, responding to climate change and supporting multi-dimensional
human wellbeing5.
Yet, delivering positive outcomes at scale remains a fundamen-
tal challenge for conservation practice
6
. Scaling efforts have often
fallen short, frequently failing to deliver their promised benefits and
sometimes leading to adverse outcomes for people and nature. This
Perspective integrates concepts and evidence from diverse fields,
highlighting previously overlooked linkages between often isolated
topics. It offers approaches by which practitioners, policymakers
and researchers may navigate these complexities. We first discuss the
mixed and sometimes problematic legacy of conservation scaling,
then introduce relevant theories before offering five practical lessons
Received: 12 January 2024
Accepted: 9 July 2024
Published online: xx xx xxxx
Check for updates
1Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK. 2The Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, Conservation International,
Arlington, VA, USA. 3Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India. 4Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY, USA. 5Department of Natural
Resources and the Environment, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 6Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 7Downing
College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 8Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. 9Department of Management, Society and
Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark. 10Department of Biology and Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, University
of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 11The Biodiversity Consultancy, Cambridge, UK. 12These authors contributed equally: Thomas Pienkowski, Arundhati Jagadish.
e-mail: t.pienkowski@imperial.ac.uk; arundhati@ncf-india.org
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
benefits and costs
22
. Such approaches can undermine the autonomy
and livelihoods of communities (for example, ref. 23) and may also
increase the risk of abandoned actions at the end of project cycles.
In general, there are many instances of adoption followed by wide-
spread abandonment. For example, community-oriented marine
protected areas in Indonesia appear to have delivered short-term
decreases in poverty, but these benefits were not observed after the
initial donor-assisted phase ended
24
. Such outcomes are fuelled by the
challenges of sustaining long-term financing following initial imple-
mentation of the project25,26.
Scaling positive impacts is not a unique challenge to conserva-
tion but represents a cross-cutting problem in sustainable develop-
ment. For instance, an evaluation of 79 large-scale irrigation projects
in Sub-Saharan Africa found that only a median of 16% of their target
areas were brought under irrigation27. According to McLean and
Gargani28, “How to enable good innovations to go to scale is one
of the great perennial challenges and frontiers in development
practice”. The challenge of scaling sustainable development actions
may partly emerge from a limited understanding of the complex
and dynamic processes linking scaling, effectiveness and social
justice. Reflecting on the successes and failures in past scaling
efforts can provide insights into related processes, ultimately inform-
ing effective, responsible and equitable action to meet local and
global conservation and sustainable development goals.
Scaling out, up and deep in theory
Conservation actions involve protecting, restoring and managing
landscapes and seascapes while reducing indirect drivers of nature
loss
3,29,30
. They can include direct on-the-ground activities (for example,
removing invasive species) or institutional and legislative actions (for
example, introducing pro-environmental policies)
31
. They can emerge
from local communities, non-governmental organizations, academ-
ics and other actors and may diffuse organically without intentional
at the intersection of scaling, effectiveness and social justice (Fig. 1).
By encouraging those calling for scaling to reflect on these lessons, we
hope to encourage a more nuanced and critical approach to going to
scale for people, nature and the climate.
Mixed success of scaling for impact
On occasion, conservation actions become widely adopted with
predominantly positive outcomes. For example, the adoption of
community-based forest management in over 18,000 forests in Nepal
appears to have decreased poverty and deforestation7. Similarly,
hundreds of Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries areas have been estab-
lished in Chile, with emerging evidence indicating that they may have
delivered socio-economic benefits8,9.
Yet, such bright spots are rare, with many widely adopted actions
failing to deliver their intended benefits (for example, refs. 10–12). At
least 22 Wildlife Management Areas, affecting hundreds of thousands
of people, have been established in Tanzania since 2006
13,14
. Yet, Keane
et al.
15
found no clear evidence that these areas have led to a widespread
decrease in poverty—a primary aim. Similarly, over 350 communities
have engaged in Locally Managed Marine Areas in Fiji, but evidence
indicates that they have had limited effects on social and ecological
outcomes (despite improvements in intermediate outcomes)16. Other
commonly implemented actions have had substantial unintended
consequences
17,18
. For example, among 111 studies of assisted migra-
tion, rewilding, biocontrol and other widely practised interventions,
36% reported unintended outcomes with sometimes persistent and
severe adverse ecological effects19.
Some projects have promoted adoption through questionable
and potentially coercive approaches, undermining the long-term
durability of actions. For example, Reducing Emissions from Defor-
estation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiatives have been
widely implemented, but sometimes without the free, prior and
informed consent of rights holders20,21 or by misrepresenting the
2
5
Eectiveness can change
depending on scale
Monitoring scaling can enhance
management, reporting and research
Total impact
Number of adopters
Marginal eectiveness
conditional on scale
Number of adopters
Time
Periodic monitoring
1Total impact depends on both
eectiveness and scalability
4Pressures to scale can incentivize bad
practices undermining long-term outcomes
Coercing actors
to adopt
Abandonment
after project
Number of adopters
Time
Scalability
Eectiveness
Eective but
not scalable
Eective and
scalable
Not scalable
or eective
Scalable but
ineective
3Feedback processes change the
conditions influencing adoption
Rate of adoption
Socio-ecological context
Types of scaling
Scaling
deep
Scaling
out
Scaling up
Fig. 1 | Types of scaling and lessons for scaling impact. The three types of scaling include scaling out, scaling up and scaling deep. This figure depicts the five key
lessons for scaling effective conservation in responsible ways for people, nature and the climate.
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
promotion or be actively encouraged (the latter being our primary
focus). Furthermore, conservation actions often encompass a constel-
lation of activities, processes and principles32. Thus, scaling an action
might involve emulating a core set of activities or principles in new
settings, but rarely involves exact replication.
Many frameworks describe the scaling of conservation and
other sustainability actions33. Among these, Moore et al.34 distinguish
between scaling out, scaling up and scaling deep, which can be applied
to conservation actions (Table 1).
Scaling out involves expanding an action to more people or
places—often starting from pilot or grassroots projects—and may be
achieved in several ways33,35: (1) by expanding an intervention across a
wider programme area (for example, reproducing an action in new loca-
tions and communities)6,35,36; (2) by actively increasing the participatory
scope of an action (for example, recruiting more households within the
action area); and (3) by promoting the organic spread of actions outside
a programme area (for example, through peer-to-peer learning and
cross-community meetings)6,35,36. Scaling up involves engaging with
higher institutional levels to change the rules, logics and incentives
to facilitate uptake (for example, creating dedicated funding mecha-
nisms to encourage uptake of an action)33,34,37. Furthermore, scaling up
might involve leveraging policies and technologies within existing sys-
tems to encourage adoption at a population level38, including through
engagement with governments and the private sector39. Finally, scaling
deep involves changing underlying attitudes, norms, knowledge and
values to accelerate adoption and structural transformation40. These
socio-psychological factors can be powerful determinants of behav-
iour
41
and have been the subject of substantial conservation research
42
.
Although often considered relatively stable, these behavioural drivers
can be influenced by well-designed interventions that draw on lessons
from psychology, social marketing, sociology and other fields43.
We use the term scalability to mean the potential for an action
to scale out, up or deep, influenced by both the characteristics of an
initiative and its broader socio-ecological context
44
. We describe effec-
tiveness as a measure of an action’s success or failure in achieving its
stated targets, and unintended consequences as outcomes that were
outside the objectives of the action. Finally, we refer to total impact as
the cumulative consequences of an action at a given scale of implemen-
tation (that is, a function of its effectiveness and scale). Throughout
this Perspective, we refer to systematic and evidence-based theories
of scaling45 (Box 1).
Scaling of conservation action may contribute to the wider goal
of shifting social systems towards greater sustainability. Multiple
frameworks describe how systems change in response to social and
technological innovations46. For example, in the Multi-Level Perspec-
tive framework38, innovations emerge in niches and—if successful and
widely adopted—exert pressure on systems to change. If this pressure
is strong enough, these systems transform, becoming the new normal.
Our Perspective recognizes but does not delve deeply into the role of
scaling for social transformation.
Why scale?
Some conservation actions are highly context specific; they may be
effective and relevant in a given social, political and ecological set-
ting, but are ineffective and generate unintended consequences in
other contexts
47
. For example, sustainable cacao-based agroforestry
might deliver desirable social and ecological outcomes in the wetter
and cooler regions of the Maya Mountains of Belize but be ineffective
in other places48.
Yet, scaling can be beneficial in some circumstances. Activities,
processes and principles that deliver benefits in one setting may also
be advantageous in others. Thus, scaling may involve intentionally shar-
ing, adapting and facilitating promising ideas and approaches to real-
ize their benefits among more people and places. Potential examples
include invasive vertebrate eradication techniques suitable on islands
worldwide49, delayed grassland mowing applicable across northern
Europe
50
and principles for supporting rights-based approaches
51
or
conservationists’ wellbeing
52
. Furthermore, some actions may be more
effective when implemented at larger scales (for example, ref. 53; see
the section ‘Effectiveness can change depending on scale’). There can
also be advantages to collective and coordinated action. For instance,
many actors engaging with a practice or idea—potentially mobilized by
coordinating actors—can generate the critical mass needed to trans-
form systems towards greater sustainability
54
. Therefore, the context
specificity of actions and their suitability for scaling across geographi-
cal scales exists on a spectrum.
In this Perspective, we recognize the need for greater conservation
action, but caution against calling for scaling in all contexts. Instead,
conservation actions operating at multiple scales are needed. Moreo-
ver, we encourage those calling for scaling to interrogate why, identify
appropriate scaling targets and their consequences for people and
nature and assess the readiness of initiatives to go to scale (Box 2).
Critically reflecting on these questions echoes calls in other sectors
for responsible and deliberative innovation and scaling55.
Five lessons for scaling the impact of
conservation actions
During a series of six workshops and drawing on empirical case studies,
we identified five lessons that policymakers, funders and other decision
makers should consider when navigating the challenges of conserva-
tion scaling (Fig. 1). The initial four concentrate on the decision-making
context, whereas the fifth is related to the availability of data essential
for evidence-informed decision-making.
Total impact depends on effectiveness and scalability
Identifying and promoting effective conservation actions will be essen-
tial for meeting global biodiversity and climate targets56–58. However,
the total impact of an action is a function of both its effectiveness
and how widely it is scaled. For instance, a hypothetical technique for
replanting mangrove seedlings might be highly effective in experimen-
tal settings but require specialist knowledge and equipment, precluding
Table 1 | Examples of conservation actions that could be scaled out, up and deep to protect, manage and restore nature
Scaling out: expanding an action to
more people or places Scaling up: engaging with higher institutional levels to
facilitate action adoption Scaling deep: changing underlying norms,
attitudes and values to inspire people to
live dierently
Protect Expansion in the number of community
conservation areas National governments establishing community
conservation funding mechanisms Integrating environmental education into
school curricula to cultivate a conservation
stewardship ethic
Manage Increasing the number of building
development projects following
biodiversity net gain (BNG) principles
Introducing government regulations that require
developers to demonstrate BNG and investing in
government capacity for implementation and monitoring
Working with industry associations to raise
awareness of BNG and provide training to
developers and local authorities
Restore Increasing the number of farmers
practising riparian restoration Establishing policies that incentivize habitat restoration on
private farms Conservation agencies adopting
rights-based approaches, supporting
locally led restoration efforts
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
its widespread adoption, thus having little total impact. Recent climate
mitigation research similarly differentiates between technical potential
(reduction in CO
2
equivalents if an action fully realized its objectives),
action feasibility (the likelihood that an actor will adopt an action)
and actual mitigation (the actual CO
2
equivalents mitigated, in light
of action feasibility)59,60.
There has been substantial and much-needed progress in evalu-
ating the effectiveness or technical potential of actions. For exam-
ple, the 2021 edition of What Works in Conservation summarizes
evidence on the effectiveness of over 2,500 conservation interven-
tions50. However, less progress has been made in systematically iden-
tifying the characteristics of actions that influence their scalability
(but see refs. 6,61–66) and even less has been made in integrating
this understanding into conservation design, implementation and
adaptive management. This lack of scaling evidence and its opera-
tionalization in conservation starkly contrasts with other sectors. For
example, Piñeiro et al.67 identified nearly 18,000 papers on the factors
influencing farmers’ adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
Tools such as the Adoption and Diffusion Outcome Prediction Tool
(https://adopt.csiro.au) have been developed to help users to predict
the rate and peak level of adoption of agricultural innovations
68
. By
contrast, many conservation projects follow what Salafsky and Margo-
luis35 call a pilot and pray approach (that is, supporting actions solely
based on their effectiveness while ignoring their scalability risks and
thus promoting approaches that deliver limited total benefit).
Conversely, supporting actions based on their scalability but over-
looking evidence of their effectiveness may also undermine impact.
Despite growing evidence evaluating conservation effectiveness,
studies suggest that the lessons learned are often ignored when decid-
ing which actions to promote69–71. For example, many large-scale tree
planting programmes have failed to improve long-term ecological out
-
comes10,11. Yet, large-scale tree planting is a core approach to meeting
ambitious global restoration targets (for example, the Bonn Challenge
and Trillion Trees initiative). Failing to integrate effectiveness evidence
into decision-making risks scaling actions based on unrealistic expec-
tations, ultimately delivering little benefit at potentially great cost.
Box 1
Theories of scaling as tools to guide conservation scaling
Drawing on agrifood systems research, Wigboldus and Brouwers127
argue that plans to scale agricultural innovations are often a black
box of general ideas and unquestioned assumptions. In response,
they propose the concept of theories of scaling127—a logical
explanation of how a given action is expected to reach a desired
scale. Theories of scaling could come in many forms depending on
users’ needs (see inset igure for an example) and may be standalone
or integrated into broader theories of change (explaining how actions
are expected to lead to envisioned changes). These theories of
scaling could describe the mechanisms by which initiatives scale
(for example, scaling out driven by peer-to-peer learning), facilitating
activities (for example, hosting demonstration farm visits) and key
assumptions (for example, learning about an initiative increases
adoption). Moreover, theories of scaling could describe how these
mechanisms, activities and assumptions are expected to change
over a project while also being living documents that adaptively
evolve. Emerging frameworks and guidance for scaling, such as
those developed by Jagadish et al.77, Sartas et al.128 and Salafsky and
Margoluis35, may help to guide the development of these theories of
scaling and their constituent activities.
Mid-phaseEarly phase Late phase
Number of
adopters
Plausible scaling
process
NGO activities
• Pilot agroforestry model among 100
farmers followed by peer-to-peer
workshops among 200
• Lack of awareness is a barrier to
adoption, but it can be overcome by
NGO activities
• Revised forestry policies reduce
adoption barriers
• Chocolate makers source cacao from
farmers
• Agroforestry is only adopted in places
with suitable social and ecological
conditions
• Lobby legislators to update forestry
policy
• Engage premium cacao buyers to
build markets
• Organize peer-to-peer workshops
nationally
• Outreach with remaining potential
adopters
Assumptions
Early adopters share knowledge of cacao-based
agroforestry in their networks
Changes in laws mean more farmers can access
state forest reserves for agroforestry.
A large proportion of farmers in NGO target
communities adopt agroforestry
All farmers in suitable ecological contexts who are
likely to adopt have done so
Target level of scale
A hypothetical example of a theory of scaling from the perspective of a non-governmental organization (NGO) that wishes to scale sustainable
cacao-based agroforestry among farmers. The NGO chose to show the expected number of adopters across the project timeline (split into an
early phase, mid-phase and late phase) to meet their scaling target. In each phase, they anticipated dierent mechanisms driving the scaling
process, enabled by project activities with accompanying assumptions.
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
Therefore, decision makers should consider and disclose evi-
dence of both scalability and effectiveness—alongside other factors
(discussed below)—when deciding which actions to pursue. One con-
sequence of doing so is that moderately effective but scalable actions
might deliver a greater overall positive impact compared with highly
effective but difficult-to-scale actions. Combined consideration of
scalability and effectiveness could be fostered in several ways:
(1) There is a growing but still limited systematic understanding of
the factors driving the scaling of conservation actions6. Better
theoretical understanding could help to inform the design of ac-
tions with characteristics that lend themselves towards scalabil-
ity and for accessing the scaling readiness of initiatives (Box 2).
Such understanding could also help funders and nancers to
critically evaluate the feasibility and viability of projects aiming
to go to scale. Multiple theoretical frameworks have been used
to understand engagement in pro-environmental behaviour72,
such as the theory of planned behaviour73. Most of these focus
on the characteristics of individuals rather than the breadth of
contextual factors that can inuence adoption, thereby limiting
insights into the range of strategies that could promote scaling62.
In response, recent research has drawn on diusion of innova-
tion theory44 as an integrative framework for understanding the
patterns and determinants of adoption of conservation actions
(for example, refs. 6,36,62,63,65,74). Pienkowski et al.66 applied
this theory to understand how the characteristics of actions, ac-
tors and socio-ecological contexts inuenced spatial adoption
patterns among 222,000 farmers in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
(2) Tools have recently been developed to help conservation practi-
tioners to integrate eectiveness evidence into decision-making
alongside other factors that inuence scaling, such as feasibility
and costs (for example, the Evidence-to-Decision tool75 and eco-
nomic analyses76). Building on guidance by Jagadish et al.77 and
Salafsky and Margoluis35 and drawing on examples from other
sectors, such as the Adoption and Diusion Outcome Prediction
Tool, analogous user-oriented tools might help practitioners
to incorporate scalability considerations into project design,
deployment and adaptive management.
(3) Combining eectiveness and scalability data, such tools might
allow users to forecast an action’s impact at dierent scales and
at what cost, helping them to choose between options. Similar
tools have been proposed to prioritize climate mitigation strat-
egies, which account for technical potential and action feasibil-
ity59,60. The development of such tools is hindered by the limited
availability of systematically collected and centralized data on
which conservation actions have scaled and why (see the sec-
tion ‘Monitoring scaling can enhance evidence-informed adap-
tive management, reporting and research’). Moreover, it is often
dicult—and sometimes impossible—to make accurate predic-
tions within complex socio-ecological systems78. Clark et al.79
applied epidemiological methods to forecast the adoption tra-
jectory of 19 conservation case studies. These predictions were
accurate under stable conditions but less accurate when there
were sudden perturbations in adoption trends (for example, be-
cause of large injections of external funding). Clark et al.79 advise
against using such methods for long-term prediction, but rather
to guide adaptive management towards scaling targets (see the
section ‘Monitoring scaling can enhance evidence-informed
adaptive management, reporting and research’). Equally, meth-
ods such as agent-based modelling might help to integrate
patchy empirical data with suitable theory to predict plausible
patterns of future scaling. For example, Jørgensen et al.80 used
agent-based modelling to forecast business-as-usual and coun-
terfactual scenarios of Locally Managed Marine Area adoption
patterns in Fiji. These predictive methods can help to identify
best bet initiatives and for participatory and scenario-based
decision-making.
Effectiveness can change depending on scale
There are multiple reasons why an action’s effectiveness might change
depending on its scale of deployment, including issues of context speci-
ficity (see the section ‘Why scale?’), unrealistic piloting, evolving sup-
port systems and feedback processes that can reinforce or hamper
effectiveness.
The decision to scale conservation actions often starts from test-
ing or observing their implementation at local scales. For example,
Fiji’s Locally Managed Marine Areas model incorporates and formalizes
traditional communal fisheries management practices
81
. Pilot projects
are often used to evaluate initiatives at small scales. However, piloting
is often performed under ideal conditions, such as under the oversight
of attentive project designers, with adequate financial support and in
suitable socio-economic and ecological settings. For example, Mas-
sarella et al.22 describe how pilot REDD+ projects in Tanzania received
large amounts of attention and resources from civil society, funders
and government agencies. However, these REDD+ projects appear
to have delivered limited benefits at scale82. Under pilot conditions,
actions may be more likely to demonstrate effectiveness, but this may
decline as actions scale out to new places receiving less support and
under potentially sub-optimal socio-ecological conditions. Similar
issues of unrealistic piloting followed by unsuccessful scaling have been
observed in the development and agricultural sectors (for example,
ref. 83). Therefore, although pilot projects offer valuable learning
opportunities and help to filter out undesirable actions, funders and
others should recognize that they can be poor predictors of effective-
ness at scale
26
. Instead, funders might ask for an evidence-informed
theory of scaling (Box 1), with built-in checkpoints to evaluate
pre-conditions for effectiveness at new sites (for example, suitable
ecological conditions or appropriate local governance structures)
or to monitor for declines in effectiveness as projects are deployed.
Such theories of scaling could be developed when assessing the scaling
readiness of initiatives (Box 2).
Relatedly, some initiatives may be scaled out with inadequate
provision of support systems required to ensure that they deliver
Box 2
Assessing scaling readiness in
conservation
Before taking steps to scale initiatives, we encourage decision
makers to examine whether those initiatives are ready to scale as
part of a responsible approach to conservation innovation.
This relection could involve critically relecting on the ive
lessons we present below, focusing on the initiative, broader
socio-ecological contexts and potential good and bad outcomes
from scaling. Conservation could learn much from how other
sectors have approached evaluating scaling readiness. For example,
Sartas et al.129 propose nine levels of agricultural innovation
scaling readiness, ranging from an idea to an “innovation that is
validated for use in an uncontrolled environment”. Furthermore,
they propose a scaling readiness decision support process that
evaluates the innovation and innovation system, diagnoses scaling
readiness, develops strategies to overcome bottlenecks, facilitates
multi-stakeholder scaling processes and monitors the process
for adaptive management128. Similar systems could be adapted to
support systematic scaling processes in conservation.
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
benefits at scale. For example, many forest-related voluntary carbon
markets have failed to deliver the claimed benefits partly because of
inadequate methods to ensure additionality12, and some biodiversity
offset markets have suffered from weak governance and enforcement84.
As such, scaling out actions may require a simultaneous scaling out, up
or deep of systems and approaches to ensure their effectiveness. For
example, governments might scale up policies to ensure high-quality
carbon offsets accompanying the scaling out of forest-related carbon
initiatives. Therefore, those developing theories of scaling should
consider scaling a cluster of parallel support systems to ensure effec-
tiveness at scale.
Economies and diseconomies of scale and collective action prob
-
lems may further complicate the relationship between scale and effec-
tiveness. For example, economies of scale mean that larger forest
restoration projects may be more cost effective than smaller ones
53
.
Similarly, collective action problems are common in conservation;
an initiative may only become effective when a critical mass of actors
engage. Projections of the net impacts of scaling actions that overlook
these nonlinearities are probably wrong. Tools to forecast actions’
impacts at different scales (see the section ‘Total impact depends on
effectiveness and scalability’) should attempt to account for the most
salient of these nonlinearities.
Feedback processes change socio-ecological conditions
influencing future adoption
The uptake of conservation actions can fundamentally change the
social and environmental conditions under which future adoption
decisions are made. The adoption of conservation actions, by design,
alters local environments. These environmental changes can, in turn,
affect the decisions of potential adopters to engage in an action. For
example, the establishment of community forestry areas by commu-
nities in Pemba Island, Zanzibar displaced fuelwood harvesting to
nearby settlements (that is, leakage)
85
, the inhabitants of which were
in turn more likely to apply for protections on their own forests in an
apparent endogenous process of scaling out86. Conversely, adopting
conservation actions can alter environmental conditions in ways that
promote abandonment, as illustrated in the evaluation of a ten-year
CARE–World Wildlife Fund Alliance project in Mozambique87. Initially,
communities supported fish and mangrove no-take zones, enhancing
food security. However, as these areas regained value as sources of food
and income, conservation support declined, leading to abandonment
of the no-take zones87.
Moreover, feedback reinforcement processes may exist between
scaling out, up and deep, which when combined may substantially
change systems88. For example, decentralized approaches to wildlife
management were trialled at the grassroots level in southern Africa
in the 1960s and 1970s89. These trials provided proof of concept for
community-based natural resource management—a model that was
consequently formalized in national policies (for example, refs. 90,91).
In turn, supportive national policies and the availability of external
support can facilitate further scaling
6,61
. Thus, scaling out may have
reinforcement relationships with scaling up.
Similarly, scaling out might both catalyse and be driven by scaling
deep. For example, the scaling deep of concerns about social outcomes
Box 3
Experiences of scaling out, up and deep in the International Small
Group and Tree Planting Program
The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST)
leverages voluntary carbon markets to incentivize tree planting
by smallholder farmers in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and India
to maximize the beneits for participating farmers130. Since its
inception in 1999, it has successfully scaled out, reaching over
170,000 participants in four countries through grassroots activity
and targeted expansion, with information spreading through
existing social networks131. This is probably due partly to strong
socio-ecological feedback loops94, whereby improved livelihoods
are linked directly to the ecological health of individual farms.
Participants have planted over 23million trees and own the rights
to veriied carbon credits generated by quantifying their growth.
This income is suicient to oset the opportunity cost of
committing to tree planting132, but once planted, trees provide
multiple co-beneits to farmers133, including fuelwood, animal
fodder, fruit or nut crops, shade and soil stabilization, providing a
strong incentive for trees to be maintained over many years.
The greening impact of TIST tree planting is visible at the landscape
scale and has been demonstrated to extend beyond individual tree
groves to neighbouring land134.
TIST’s structure facilitates rapid scaling up of innovations and best
practices across the entire organization while remaining lexible and
adaptive in local contexts135. The programme is built around small
groups of six to 12 households regularly meeting to share experience
and training, with a strong culture of learning by doing131. Information
is shared rapidly between clusters via a network of facilitators and
re-distributed widely in multilingual monthly newsletters130. Thus,
in addition to the core activity of tree planting, TIST spreads a suite
of complimentary agroecological practices, including tree nursery
establishment, an emphasis on local seed collection and indigenous
tree species, and conservation agriculture.
Rotating leadership throughout the programme structure, with
equal leadership for women and men, helps to build social capital,
further enhancing the programme outcomes136, and contributes
to scaling deep. Experience in leadership has empowered many
participants to become more active in local communities or political
processes or even to purchase land for the irst time. Ensuring
economic empowerment for participants of both genders137, in turn,
enables greater investment in farming, education and health138.
Meeting of TIST members in Uganda.
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
might simultaneously reinforce and been driven by the scaling out of
community-based conservation approaches. Moreover, diffusion of
innovation theory suggests that innovations aligned with values and
beliefs are more likely to be adopted44,77.
Meadows92 argues that the most powerful leverage points in sys-
tems—such as shifting mindsets, goals and power dynamics—can be the
most difficult to change. Nevertheless, Moore et al.
34
contend that the
feedback processes between scaling out, up and deep can be harnessed
to create societal transformation. For example, scaling out communal
fisheries practices may lead to the scaling deep of pro-environmental
values, representing deep leverage points for sustainability transi-
tions93. Engaging such feedback processes may help to catalyse positive
social tipping points towards sustainability94. Consequently, theories of
scaling might include activities that combine scaling out, up and deep
to transform systems (Box 3). Ultimately, Woltering et al.26 argue that
effective scaling of impact requires moving away from a narrow focus
on reaching many (for example, recruiting more adopters) and towards
changing the structural incentives and rules that foster engagement.
Pressures to scale can incentivize bad practices that
undermine long-term outcomes
Much of the scaling research in conservation has focused on individual
decision-making, such as how costs, benefits and social pressures influ-
ence adoption. However, considerable research demonstrates that
conservation actions are an exercise of power
95,96
. Multiple actors at
different institutional levels determine which actions are adopted
and implemented on the ground, including governments, funders
and financers, civil society organizations, local groups and the wider
public
97–99
. In this context, money and support tend to flow from higher
institutional levels, such as governments and funders, to lower levels,
such as local conservation agencies and communities
100,101
. Multiple
actors across these levels face pressures to scale, such as when local
non-governmental organizations must commit to ambitious scaling
targets to obtain funding. In this context, conservation agencies have
critical roles in facilitating scaling but can be incentivized to use prac-
tices that may undermine long-term benefits for people and nature.
Emerging research highlights how supportive institutions and the
availability of external support can help to facilitate the adoption of
conservation actions61. For example, technical advice and facilitation
by external actors appeared to be key drivers of landholders’ adoption
of Wildlife Management Units in Mexico
62
. Moreover, such external
organizations can raise awareness of legal rights among local actors,
facilitate access to funding or provide technical capacity.
Yet, there can be blurred boundaries between assistance and
coercion, where power imbalances are manipulated to encourage
local actors to adopt actions. For example, the scaling out of some
community-based Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania appears
to have been driven by top-down interests, sometimes in direct oppo-
sition to those of local actors
102–104
. Facing pressures to scale, local
conservation agencies may be incentivized to use a range of practices
that may worsen outcomes for people and nature. For instance, con-
servation agencies may prioritize engaging with elites with financial
and social resources that enable adoption while leveraging the status
of those elites to encourage engagement by others. These elites are
thus more likely to reap the early benefits of interventions, potentially
widening socio-economic inequalities
77
. Conservation agencies may
also misrepresent the benefits, costs and risks of adopting an action.
For example, conservation organizations may have inflated residents’
expectations of the benefits of REDD+ projects in Tanzania to gain
buy-in, and these benefits were ultimately not delivered22. Moreover,
local actors often experience heterogeneous benefits and costs from
adopting conservation actions
85
. Thus, conservation agencies may
engage in scaling discussions with local sub-groups who stand to gain
while marginalizing those who might lose out. For example, conser-
vation organizations in northern Kenya were accused of promoting
community conservancies using practices that stoke intercommu-
nity conflicts, although these allegations have been contested
105,106
.
Using coercive scaling approaches risks contravening internationally
recognized human rights regimens (for example, ref. 107). Moreover,
many conservation actions depend on local actors’ buy-in and sup-
port
108
, which coercive scaling methods could weaken. Therefore, such
approaches might deliver apparent short-term progress to immediate
project targets (for example, enrolling more people) at the expense of
providing long-term benefits.
A nuanced approach to scaling should involve scrutinizing the
motives of those calling for it. Above, we describe contexts where
scaling is desirable (see the section ‘Why scale?’). However, calls to
scale may favour some types of actors over others. Although some
conservation actions scale organically, many are actively promoted
by implementing organizations and funded by non-local institutions.
In many contexts, these implementing organizations and higher-level
institutions may have an outsized role in deciding which actions
should scale
99
. Adopters—including land managers, individuals and
communities—may have comparatively less say over the options
presented to them and, ultimately, which actions go to scale.
Coordinating widespread implementation may require substantial
financial, human and technical resources that are often only available
to large organizations (often acting as brokers with smaller organi-
zations
109
). In this context, big conservation organizations may be
motivated to scale initiatives not because doing so is necessary but
rather to attract commensurately large funding. Equally, funders have
incentives to go big; awarding multiple small grants takes more time
to assess, administer and monitor than awarding a few large ones.
Moreover, private sector finance, such as via compensation-based
mechanisms, is a growing revenue stream in conservation
110
. Much
of this finance is directed to actions allowing private sector actors to
mitigate their environmental impacts, such as nature-based carbon
offsets. These actions are primarily designed to be financially competi-
tive and meet technical requirements for measurement, calculation and
monitoring, rather than to meet heterogeneous local needs
111
. Reflect-
ing on scaling in conservation, Rocliffe and Quinlan112 state, “For too
long, market forces have compelled international conservation NGOs
[…] to consolidate power rather than democratize it“. In this context,
unquestioned scaling narratives may marginalize small and localized
conservation actors from the conservation agenda and undermine the
recognition of land and resource rights. Overzealous calls for scaling
may crowd-out small, locally led and effective initiatives and exclude
traditional knowledge, values and practices. Ultimately, these scaling
approaches may jeopardize efforts to decolonize global conservation.
A key characteristic of responsible innovation and scaling is antici-
pating potential consequences and impacts—both good and bad—if
initiatives go to scale
55
. Therefore, well-designed theories of scaling
could leverage the benefits of external assistance while integrating
parallel checks, balances and systems to protect rights, such as through
free, prior and informed consent. However, although the need for
these systems has been recognized for decades, their use remains
patchy4. Therefore, practitioners might co-design theories of scaling
with those who will be affected, including critically reflecting on the
motives and methods for promoting scaling. Moreover, funders and
financers might scale out third-party verification of consent processes,
establish independent grievance and outcome harvesting mecha-
nisms that bypass implementing organizations and ensure that rights
violations are penalized (for example, by suspending funding). Addi-
tionally, funders and financiers should weigh the ambition of scaling
targets against the risks associated with scaling pressures and critically
evaluate the feasibility of proposed theories of scaling. Ultimately, the
conservation movement should join efforts to scale the decolonization
of conservation. This could include scaling up Indigenous peoples’
and local communities’ rights recognition in national policies, scal-
ing out approaches that foster locally led conservation (for example,
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
other effective area-based conservation measures
113
) and scaling deep
respect for diverse knowledge, values and practices.
Monitoring scaling can enhance evidence-informed adaptive
management, reporting and research
Monitoring of adoption patterns and trends is valuable for multiple
reasons: it supports iterative project design and day-to-day adaptive
management, can help to build an evidence base to inform scaling deci-
sions and assists in effectively reporting progress towards global goals.
Adaptive management in conservation is the systematic and
iterative process of learning from and adjusting management strat-
egies in the face of uncertainty
114
. Conservation organizations may
routinely monitor progress towards scaling milestones115, such as
the number of farmers enrolled in a programme. However, adaptive
management for scaling could also involve iteratively assessing scal-
ing readiness, identifying when further scaling becomes cost inef-
fective or counterproductive and adapting theories of scaling when
contextual conditions change or new information comes to light.
Jagadish et al.77 draws on diffusion of innovation theory in a toolkit to
help practitioners to evaluate the characteristics of actions, actors
and broader contexts that influence the uptake of those actions.
Such tools—potentially implemented in dialogue with prospective
adopters and other stakeholders—could be used in adaptive manage-
ment to stay on target towards scaling goals, as has been called for in
other sectors116.
Ideally, this adaptive management would be informed by evidence
of which scaling strategies have been effective elsewhere. Most con-
servation organizations report data on actions to funders, and some
selectively share this information publicly (for example, refs. 117,118).
Yet, comprehensive, centralized and publicly available data on which
conservation actions have been taken are scarce, hampering efforts
to build this evidence base. Furthermore, data on adoption might
not capture subsequent abandonment or intentional scaling down
(for example, when they prove harmful) of actions (with the partial
exception of the PADDDtracker database119, although this lacks com-
prehensiveness). Abandonment might be particularly likely when fund-
ing and external support ceases, especially when this is unexpected
or unplanned
120,121
. Compared with other fields, such as agriculture
(for example, refs. 122–124), understanding the factors driving aban-
donment and their connections to adoption processes represents a
major knowledge gap in conservation science.
Systematically collecting and giving researchers access to these
data would strengthen understanding of scaling processes and out-
comes, thus developing an evidence base to inform the scaling of
decision-making. These data could be systematically collected, cen-
tralized and disclosed when governments sign agreements with local
adopters (for example, the Zambian Community Forestry Management
Group database125) or as a condition of funders issuing grants. Such
systems could be integrated into emerging tools to support national
reporting in the Convention on Biological Diversity, such as the Data
Reporting Tool for Multilateral Environmental Agreements
126
. Broadly,
we encourage conservation agencies to provide open access to data
on their actions, especially when these are carried out on public land
and with public funding.
Conclusion
Meeting global goals for nature, the climate and people will require
substantially scaling conservation actions. Yet, efforts to scale conser-
vation often fall short. Many scaled actions fail to meet expectations,
lead to unintended harm to people and nature or are abandoned after
the projects end. These examples provide potentially valuable insights,
which we distil into five lessons that policymakers, funders and other
decision makers could consider when scaling conservation actions.
In doing so, we integrate insights and evidence from diverse fields,
illustrate new connections between typically isolated concepts and
propose strategies for practitioners, policymakers and researchers.
First, an action’s total impact depends on both its effectiveness and
scalability. Substantial progress has been made in understanding the
former, but effectiveness evaluations should be considered alongside
robust evidence of scaling readiness (Box 2). Second, an action’s effec-
tiveness can change depending on scale because of context specific-
ity, unrealistic piloting, evolving enabling conditions and economies
and diseconomies of scale. These nonlinear dynamics are difficult to
predict but could be managed through a well-designed and iteratively
revised theory of scaling (Box 1). Third, feedback processes can change
the socio-ecological conditions that influence future adoption. Cru-
cially, theories of scaling that harness feedback within socio-ecological
systems and processes of scaling out, up and deep could help to push
actions to scale (Box 3). Fourth, pressures to scale can incentivize bad
practices; coercive scaling strategies might show apparent short-term
progress to project targets while harming people and undermining
long-term benefits. Moreover, unquestioned scaling narratives and
strategies may jeopardize progress to decolonize global conserva-
tion. Finally, monitoring scaling can enhance adaptive management,
reporting and research. Understanding which actions have delivered
impacts at scale requires more routine and publicly disclosed reporting
of which actions have been taken, where, when and by whom (despite
the challenges of doing so). Reflecting on these five lessons may help
to deliver effective and equitable conservation progress to the triple
goals of reversing biodiversity loss, combatting climate change and
supporting multi-dimensional human wellbeing.
References
1. Langhammer, P. F. et al. The positive impact of conservation
action. Science 384, 453–458 (2024).
2. Bradshaw, C. J. A. et al. Underestimating the challenges of
avoiding a ghastly future. Front. Conserv. Sci. 1, 615419 (2021).
3. Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity
needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).
4. Newing, H. & Perram, A. What do you know about conservation
and human rights? Oryx 53, 595–596 (2019).
5. Baldwin-Cantello, W. et al. The triple challenge: synergies,
trade-os and integrated responses for climate, biodiversity,
and human wellbeing goals. Clim. Policy 23, 782–799
(2023).
6. Mascia, M. B. & Mills, M. When conservation goes viral: the
diusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and
practices. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12442 (2018).
7. Oldekop, J. A., Sims, K. R. E., Karna, B. K., Whittingham, M. J.
& Agrawal, A. Reductions in deforestation and poverty from
decentralized forest management in Nepal. Nat. Sustain. 2,
421–428 (2019).
8. Gelcich, S. et al. Fishers’ perceptions on the Chilean coastal TURF
system after two decades: problems, beneits, and emerging
needs. Bull. Mar. Sci. 93, 53–67 (2017).
9. Romero, P. & Melo, O. Can a territorial use right for isheries
management make a dierence for ishing communities?
Mar. Policy 124, 104359 (2021).
10. Friess, D. A. et al. Achieving ambitious mangrove restoration
targets will need a transdisciplinary and evidence-informed
approach. One Earth 5, 456–460 (2022).
11. Coleman, E. A. et al. Limited eects of tree planting on forest
canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nat. Sustain.
4, 997–1004 (2021).
12. West, T. A. P. et al. Action needed to make carbon osets
from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation.
Science 381, 873–877 (2023).
13. Bluwstein, J. et al. Between dependence and deprivation:
the interlocking nature of land alienation in Tanzania. J. Agar.
Change 18, 806–830 (2018).
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
14. Homewood, K., Nielsen, M. R. & Keane, A. Women, wellbeing
and Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania. J. Peasant Stud. 49,
335–362 (2022).
15. Keane, A. et al. Impact of Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
on household wealth. Nat. Sustain. 3, 226–233 (2020).
16. O’Garra, T. et al. National-level evaluation of a community-based
marine management initiative. Nat. Sustain. 6, 908–918 (2023).
17. Larrosa, C., Carrasco, L. R. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Unintended
feedbacks: challenges and opportunities for improving
conservation eectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 9, 316–326 (2016).
18. Polasky, S. You can’t always get what you want: conservation
planning with feedback eects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103,
5245–5246 (2006).
19. Pearson, D. E., Clark, T. J. & Hahn, P. G. Evaluating unintended
consequences of intentional species introductions and
eradications for improved conservation management.
Conserv. Biol. 36, e13734 (2022).
20. Saeed, A.-R., McDermott, C. & Boyd, E. Are REDD+ community
forest projects following the principles for collective action, as
proposed by Ostrom? Int. J. Commons 11, 572–596 (2017).
21. Bayrak, M. & Marafa, L. Ten years of REDD+: a critical review of the
impact of REDD+ on forest-dependent communities. Sustainability
8, 620 (2016).
22. Massarella, K., Sallu, S. M., Ensor, J. E. & Marchant, R. REDD+,
hype, hope and disappointment: the dynamics of expectations
in conservation and development pilot projects. World Dev. 109,
375–385 (2018).
23. Fleischman, F. et al. How politics shapes the outcomes of forest
carbon inance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 51, 7–14 (2021).
24. Gurney, G. G. et al. Poverty and protected areas: an evaluation
of a marine integrated conservation and development project in
Indonesia. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 98–107 (2014).
25. Catalano, A. S., Lyons-White, J., Mills, M. M. & Knight, A. T.
Learning from published project failures in conservation.
Biol. Conserv. 238, 108223 (2019).
26. Woltering, L., Fehlenberg, K., Gerard, B., Ubels, J. & Cooley, L.
Scaling—from “reaching many” to sustainable systems change at
scale: a critical shift in mindset. Agric. Syst. 176, 102652 (2019).
27. Higginbottom, T. P., Adhikari, R., Dimova, R., Redicker, S. &
Foster, T. Performance of large-scale irrigation projects in
sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Sustain. 4, 501–508 (2021).
28. McLean, R. & Gargani, J. Scaling Impact: Innovation for the Public
Good (Routledge, 2019).
29. Milner-Gulland, E. J. et al. Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming
the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth 4, 75–87
(2021).
30. Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Protect, manage and then restore lands
for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1027–1034 (2021).
31. Salafsky, N. et al. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation:
uniied classiications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22,
897–911 (2008).
32. Conservation Actions Classiication (V1.0) https://conservation-
standards.org/library-item/conservation-actions-classiication-
v1-0/#:~:text=Conservation%20Actions%20are%20interventions
%20undertaken,setting%20up%20a%20protected%20area
(Conservation Standards, 2019).
33. Lam, D. P. M. et al. Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives:
a typology of ampliication processes. Urban Transform. 2, 3 (2020).
34. Moore, M.-L., Riddell, D. & Vocisano, D.Scaling out, scaling up,
scaling deep: strategies of non-proits in advancing systemic
social innovation.J. Corp. Citizenship 58, 67–84 (2015).
35. Salafsky, N. & Margoluis, R. Pathways to Success: Taking
Conservation to Scale in Complex Systems (Island Press, 2021).
36. Mills, M. et al. How conservation initiatives go to scale.
Nat. Sustain. 2, 935–940 (2019).
37. Hartmann, A. & Linn, J. F. Scaling Up: a Framework and Lessons
for Development Eectiveness from Literature and Practice
(Wolfensohn Center for Development, 2008).
38. Geels, F. W. Technological transitions as evolutionary
reconiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a
case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274 (2002).
39. Lambin, E. F., Kim, H., Leape, J. & Lee, K. Scaling up solutions for a
sustainability transition. One Earth 3, 89–96 (2020).
40. Nielsen, K. S. et al. How psychology can help limit climate
change. Am. Psychol. 76, 130–144 (2021).
41. Klöckner, C. A. & Blöbaum, A. A comprehensive action
determination model: toward a broader understanding of
ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice.
J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 574–586 (2010).
42. Delaroche, M. Adoption of conservation practices: what have we
learned from two decades of social-psychological approaches?
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 45, 25–35 (2020).
43. Green, K. M., Crawford, B. A., Williamson, K. A. & DeWan, A. A. A
meta-analysis of social marketing campaigns to improve global
conservation outcomes. Soc. Mark. Q. 25, 69–87 (2019).
44. Rogers, E. M. Diusion of Innovations 5th edn (Simon and
Schuster, 2003).
45. Wigboldus, S. & Leeuwis, C. Towards Responsible Scaling Up and
Out in Agricultural Development: An Exploration of Concepts and
Principles (Centre for Development Innovation, 2013).
46. Markard, J., Raven, R. & Truer, B. Sustainability transitions: an
emerging ield of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41,
955–967 (2012).
47. Tsing, A. L. On nonscalability: the living world is not amenable to
precision-nested scales. Common Knowl. 18, 505–524 (2012).
48. Young, K. J. in Integrating Landscapes: Agroforestry for Biodiversity
Conservation and Food Sovereignty (ed. Montagnini, F.) 179–209
(Springer International, 2017).
49. Spatz, D. R. et al. The global contribution of invasive vertebrate
eradication as a key island restoration tool. Sci. Rep. 12, 13391 (2022).
50. Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Petrovan, S. O. & Smith, R. K. What
Works in Conservation 2021 (Open Book Publishers, 2021).
51. Tauli, J. C. Only a human rights-based approach will address
biodiversity loss. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1050–1051 (2022).
52. Pienkowski, T. et al. Supporting conservationists’ mental health
through better working conditions. Conserv. Biol. 37, e14097 (2023).
53. Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Strategic approaches to restoring
ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat.
Ecol. Evol. 3, 62–70 (2019).
54. Geels, F. W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability
transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Transit. 1, 24–40 (2011).
55. Owen, R. et al. in Responsible Innovation: Managing the
Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society
27–50 (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).
56. Pettorelli, N. et al. Time to integrate global climate change
and biodiversity science-policy agendas. J. Appl. Ecol. 58,
2384–2393 (2021).
57. Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. Eectiveness in conservation practice:
pointers from medicine and public health. Conserv. Biol. 15,
50–54 (2001).
58. Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M. & Knight, T. M. The
need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19,
305–308 (2004).
59. Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a
framework for examining feasibility. One Earth 3, 325–336 (2020).
60. Nielsen, K. S., Nicholas, K. A., Creutzig, F., Dietz, T. & Stern, P. C.
The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or
rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions.
Nat. Energy 6, 1011–1016 (2021).
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
61. Battista, W., Tourgee, A., Wu, C. & Fujita, R. How to achieve
conservation outcomes at scale: an evaluation of scaling
principles. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 278 (2017).
62. Romero-de-Diego, C. et al. Drivers of adoption and spread of wildlife
management initiatives in Mexico. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e438 (2021).
63. Lewis-Brown, E. et al. The importance of future generations
and conlict management in conservation.Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3,
e488 (2021).
64. Clark, M., Andrews, J. & Hillis, V. A quantitative application of
diusion of innovations for modeling the spread of conservation
behaviors. Ecol. Model. 473, 110145 (2022).
65. Abernethy, K. E., Bodin, Ö., Olsson, P., Hilly, Z. & Schwarz, A.
Two steps forward, two steps back: the role of innovation in trans-
forming towards community-based marine resource management
in Solomon Islands. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 309–321 (2014).
66. Pienkowski, T. et al. Spatial predictors of landowners’
engagement in the restoration of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
OSF Preprints https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bxdzm (2024).
67. Piñeiro, V. et al. A scoping review on incentives for adoption
of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes.
Nat. Sustain. 3, 809–820 (2020).
68. Pannell, D. J. et al. Understanding and promoting adoption of
conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust. J. Exp. Agric.
46, 1407–1424 (2006).
69. Sutherland, W. J. et al. Building a tool to overcome barriers in
research-implementation spaces: the Conservation Evidence
database. Biol. Conserv. 238, 108199 (2019).
70. Sutherland, W. J. & Wordley, C. F. R. Evidence complacency
hampers conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1215–1216 (2017).
71. Cook, C. N., Hockings, M. & Carter, R. W. Conservation in the
dark? The information used to support management decisions.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 181–186 (2010).
72. Steg, L. & Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour:
an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29,
309–317 (2009).
73. St John, F. A., Edwards-Jones, G. & Jones, J. P. Conservation and
human behaviour: lessons from social psychology. Wildl. Res. 37,
658–667 (2010).
74. Mahajan, S. L. et al. A theory-based framework for understanding
the establishment, persistence, and diusion of community-
based conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e299 (2021).
75. Christie, A. P. et al. A practical conservation tool to combine
diverse types of evidence for transparent evidence-based
decision-making. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4, e579 (2022).
76. Cook, C. N., Pullin, A. S., Sutherland, W. J., Stewart, G. B. &
Carrasco, L. R. Considering cost alongside the eectiveness
of management in evidence-based conservation: a systematic
reporting protocol. Biol. Conserv. 209, 508–516 (2017).
77. Jagadish, A., Mills, M. & Mascia, M. B. Catalyzing Conservation
at Scale: A Practitioner’s Handbook (version 0.1) (Conservation
International & Imperial College London, 2021).
78. Hofman, J. M., Sharma, A. & Watts, D. J. Prediction and explanation
in social systems. Science 355, 486–488 (2017).
79. Clark, M. et al. Forecasting adoption with epidemiological
models can enable adaptively scaling out conservation.
One Earth (in the press).
80. Jørgensen, A. C. S. et al. Forecasting the adoption and spread
of a community-based marine management initiative using
agent-based models. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/
2024.06.16.599026 (2024).
81. Jagadish, A. et al. Scaling Indigenous-led natural resource
management. Glob. Environ. Change 84, 102799 (2024).
82. Lund, J. F., Sungusia, E., Mabele, M. B. & Scheba, A. Promising
change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad.
World Dev. 89, 124–139 (2017).
83. Billé, R. Action without change? On the use and usefulness of
pilot experiments in environmental management. S. A. P. I. EN. S
3, 1–6 (2010).
84. Rampling, E. E., Zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E., Hawkins, I. & Bull, J. W.
Achieving biodiversity net gain by addressing governance gaps
underpinning ecological compensation policies. Conserv. Biol.
38, e14198 (2024).
85. Clark, M., Hamad, H. M., Andrews, J., Hillis, V. & Borgerho Mulder,
M. Quantifying local perceptions of environmental change and
links to community-based conservation practices. Conserv. Biol.
38, e14259 (2024).
86. Borgerho Mulder, M., Caro, T. & Ngwali, A. S. A silver lining
to REDD: institutional growth despite programmatic failure.
Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e312 (2021).
87. Skinner, C. A. et al. Social Outcomes of the CARE–WWF
Alliance in Mozambique: Research Findings from a Decade
of Integrated Conservation and Development Programming
(CARE Evaluations, 2019).
88. Breaugh, J., McBride, K., Kleinaltenkamp, M. & Hammerschmid,
G. Beyond diusion: a systematic literature review of innovation
scaling. Sustainability 13, 13528 (2021).
89. Roe, D., Nelson, F. & Sandbrook, C. Community Management
of Natural Resources in Africa: Impacts, Experiences and
Future Directions (International Institute for Environment and
Development, 2009).
90. Government of Kenya. Kenyan Wildlife Conservation and
Management Act, 2013 (2013).
91. Government of Malawi. Forestry Act, 1997 (1997).
92. Meadows, D. Places to intervene in a system. Whole Earth 91,
78–84 (1997).
93. Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability
transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).
94. Lenton, T. M. et al. Operationalising positive tipping points
towards global sustainability. Glob. Sustain. 5, e1 (2022).
95. Carpenter, C. Power in Conservation: Environmental Anthropology
Beyond Political Ecology 1st edn (Routledge, 2020).
96. Shackleton, R. T. et al. Navigating power in conservation.
Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, e12877 (2023).
97. Dandy, N., Fiorini, S. & Davies, A. L. Agenda-setting and power in
collaborative natural resource management. Environ. Conserv. 41,
311–320 (2014).
98. Shibaike, T. Small NGOs and agenda-setting in global
conservation governance: the case of pangolin conservation.
Glob. Environ. Polit. 22, 45–69 (2022).
99. Tallis, H. & Lubchenco, J. Working together: a call for inclusive
conservation. Nature 515, 27–28 (2014).
100. Sandbrook, C. Weak yet strong: the uneven power relations of
conservation. Oryx 51, 379–380 (2017).
101. Crosman, K. M., Singh, G. G. & Lang, S. Confronting complex
accountability in conservation with communities. Front. Mar. Sci.
8, 709423 (2021).
102. Benjaminsen, T. A., Goldman, M. J., Minwary, M. Y. & Maganga, F.
P. Wildlife management in Tanzania: state control, rent seeking
and community resistance. Dev. Change 44, 1087–1109 (2013).
103. Green, K. E. & Adams, W. M. Green grabbing and the dynamics
of local-level engagement with neoliberalization in Tanzania’s
wildlife management areas. J. Peasant Stud. 42, 97–117 (2015).
104. Bluwstein, J. & Lund, J. F. Territoriality by conservation in the Selous–
Niassa Corridor in Tanzania. World Dev. 101, 453–465 (2018).
105. Schetter, C., Mkutu, K. & Müller-Koné, M. Frontier NGOs: conservancies,
control, and violence in northern Kenya. World Dev. 151, 105735 (2022).
106. Cannon, J. Allegations of displacement, violence beleaguer
Kenyan conservancy NGO. Mongabay https://news.mongabay.
com/2021/11/allegations-of-displacement-violence-beleaguer-
kenyan-conservancy-ngo/ (2021).
Nature Ecoogy & Evoution
Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4
107. International Labour Organization. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
Convention, 1989 (1989).
108. Bennett, N. J. et al. Local support for conservation is associated
with perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and
ecological eectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12640 (2019).
109. Bixler, R. P. et al. Network governance for large-scale natural
resource conservation and the challenge of capture. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 14, 165–171 (2016).
110. The State of Finance for Nature in the G20 Report: Leading by
Example to Close the Investment Gap (United Nations Environment
Programme, 2022).
111. Osborne, T. Tradeos in carbon commodiication: a political
ecology of common property forest governance. Geoforum 67,
64–77 (2015).
112. Roclie, S. & Quinlan, R. Why conservation needs a new way to
scale. Stanford Social Innovation Review https://ssir.org/articles/
entry/why_conservation_needs_a_new_way_to_scale# (2020).
113. Gurney, G. G. et al. Biodiversity needs every tool in the box: use
OECMs. Nature 595, 646–649 (2021).
114. McCarthy, M. A. & Possingham, H. P. Active adaptive management
for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 21, 956–963 (2007).
115. Stephenson, P. J. The Holy Grail of biodiversity conservation
management: monitoring impact in projects and project
portfolios. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 17, 182–192 (2019).
116. Wigboldus, S. et al. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural
innovations. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 46 (2016).
117. Project portfolio. Green Climate Fund https://www.greenclimate.
fund/projects?f=ield_status:445 (2023).
118. Annual Report and Accounts 2021 (Fauna and Flora International,
2021).
119. Conservation International & World Wildlife Fund. PADDDtracker
Data Release Version 2.1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4974336.
(2021)
120. Ruiz-Miranda, C. R., Vilchis, L. I. & Swaisgood, R. R. Exit strategies
for wildlife conservation: why they are rare and why every
institution needs one. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 203–210 (2020).
121. Le Cornu, E. et al. Conceptualizing responsible exits in
conservation philanthropy. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, e12868 (2023).
122. Razaimahatratra, H. M., Bignebat, C., David-Benz, H., Bélières,
J.-F. & Penot, E. Tryout and (dis)adoption of conservation
agriculture. Evidence from Western Madagascar. Land Use Policy
100, 104929 (2021).
123. Habanyati, E. J., Nyanga, P. H. & Umar, B. B. Factors contributing
to disadoption of conservation agriculture among smallholder
farmers in Petauke, Zambia. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 41, 91–96 (2019).
124. Pedzisa, T., Rugube, L., Winter-Nelson, A., Baylis, K. & Mazvimavi,
K. Abandonment of conservation agriculture by smallholder
farmers in Zimbabwe. J. Sustain. Dev. 8, 561–575 (2015).
125. Overview of all CFMGs https://cfmg.mgee.gov.zm/cfmg/map
(Government of Zambia, 2023).
126. Data Reporting Tool for MEAs—DaRT https://dart.informea.org/
(United Nations Environment Programme, 2023).
127. Wigboldus, S. & Brouwers, J. Using a Theory of Scaling to Guide
Decision Making. Towards a Structured Approach to Support
Responsible Scaling of Innovations in the Context of Agrifood
Systems (Wageningen University and Research, 2016).
128. Sartas, M. et al. Scaling Readiness: Concepts, Practices, and
Implementation. 1–217 (CGIAR, 2020).
129. Sartas, M., Schut, M., Proietti, C., Thiele, G. & Leeuwis, C.
Scaling readiness: science and practice of an approach to
enhance impact of research for development. Agric. Syst. 183,
102874 (2020).
130. Growing Trees, Growing Leaders! Farmer-Powered, Time-Tested
Aorestation https://program.tist.org/ (The International Small
Group and Tree Planting Programme, 2023).
131. Benjamin, E. O. & Blum, M. Participation of smallholders in
agrofoestry agri-environmental scheme: a lesson from the rural
mount Kenyan region. J. Dev. Areas 49, 127–143 (2015).
132. Benjamin, E. O. & Sauer, J. The cost eectiveness of payments
for ecosystem services—smallholders and agroforestry in Africa.
Land Use Policy 71, 293–302 (2018).
133. De Giusti, G., Kristjanson, P. & Ruino, M. C. Agroforestry as a
climate change mitigation practice in smallholder farming:
evidence from Kenya. Climatic Change 153, 379–394 (2019).
134. Buxton, J. et al. Community-driven tree planting greens the
neighbouring landscape. Sci. Rep. 11, 18239 (2021).
135. Masiga, M., Yankel, C. & Iberre, C. The International Small Group
Tree Planting Program (TIST) Kenya. Institutional Analysis and
Capacity Building of African Agricultural Carbon Projects Case
Study (CCAFS, 2012).
136. Marshall, J. H. Analysing the Dynamics of “Positive Tipping Points”
in The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST)
from a Systems Thinking Perspective. MSc thesis, Univ. Exeter
(2022).
137. Benjamin, E. O., Ola, O. & Buchenrieder, G. Does an agroforestry
scheme with payment for ecosystem services (PES)
economically empower women in sub-Saharan Africa?
Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 1–11 (2018).
138. Benjamin, E. O., Blum, M. & Punt, M. The impact of extension
and ecosystem services on smallholder’s credit constraint.
J. Dev. Areas 50, 333–350 (2016).
Acknowledgements
T. Pienkowski., M.C. and M.M. thank the Leverhulme Trust for the
research grant (RPG-2021-440) that supported this work. This is
contribution #9 from the “Insights for Catalyzing Conservation at
Scale” initiative.
Author contributions
T. Pienkowski and A. Jagadish conceived the study idea.
T. Pienkowski, A. Jagadish, W.B., G.C.B., A.P.C., A.P.E., A. Joglekar,
K.S.N., T. Powell, T.W. and M.M. wrote the original draft of the
manuscript. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and
visualized the results. M.M. supervised the study. A. Jagadish and
M.M. acquired the funding.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Correspondence should be addressed to Thomas Pienkowski or
Arundhati Jagadish.
Peer review information Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks
George Holmes, Vanessa Adams and Seerp Wigboldus for their
contribution to the peer review of this work.
Reprints and permissions information is available at
www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional ailiations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with
the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
© Springer Nature Limited 2024
