[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Five lessons for avoiding failure when scaling in conservation

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 8, pages 1804–1814 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Many attempts to scale conservation actions have failed to deliver their intended benefits, caused unintended harm or later been abandoned, hampering efforts to bend the curve on biodiversity loss. Here we encourage those calling for scaling to pause and reflect on past scaling efforts, which offer valuable lessons: the total impact of an action depends on both its effectiveness and scalability; effectiveness can change depending on scale for multiple reasons; feedback processes can change socio-ecological conditions influencing 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 fields, explore new linkages between often isolated concepts and suggest strategies for practitioners, policymakers and researchers. Reflecting on these five lessons may help in the scaling of effective conservation actions in responsible ways to meet the triple goals of reversing biodiversity loss, combating climate change and supporting human wellbeing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Types of scaling and lessons for scaling impact.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Langhammer, P. F. et al. The positive impact of conservation action. Science 384, 453–458 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bradshaw, C. J. A. et al. Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. Front. Conserv. Sci. 1, 615419 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Newing, H. & Perram, A. What do you know about conservation and human rights? Oryx 53, 595–596 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baldwin-Cantello, W. et al. The triple challenge: synergies, trade-offs and integrated responses for climate, biodiversity, and human wellbeing goals. Clim. Policy 23, 782–799 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mascia, M. B. & Mills, M. When conservation goes viral: the diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and practices. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12442 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gelcich, S. et al. Fishers’ perceptions on the Chilean coastal TURF system after two decades: problems, benefits, and emerging needs. Bull. Mar. Sci. 93, 53–67 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Romero, P. & Melo, O. Can a territorial use right for fisheries management make a difference for fishing communities? Mar. Policy 124, 104359 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Coleman, E. A. et al. Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nat. Sustain. 4, 997–1004 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. West, T. A. P. et al. Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 381, 873–877 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bluwstein, J. et al. Between dependence and deprivation: the interlocking nature of land alienation in Tanzania. J. Agar. Change 18, 806–830 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Homewood, K., Nielsen, M. R. & Keane, A. Women, wellbeing and Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania. J. Peasant Stud. 49, 335–362 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Keane, A. et al. Impact of Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas on household wealth. Nat. Sustain. 3, 226–233 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Garra, T. et al. National-level evaluation of a community-based marine management initiative. Nat. Sustain. 6, 908–918 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Larrosa, C., Carrasco, L. R. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Unintended feedbacks: challenges and opportunities for improving conservation effectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 9, 316–326 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Polasky, S. You can’t always get what you want: conservation planning with feedback effects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 5245–5246 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fleischman, F. et al. How politics shapes the outcomes of forest carbon finance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 51, 7–14 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1027–1034 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Salafsky, N. et al. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22, 897–911 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Conservation Actions Classification (V1.0) https://conservationstandards.org/library-item/conservation-actions-classification-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 amplification processes. Urban Transform. 2, 3 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Moore, M.-L., Riddell, D. & Vocisano, D.Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep: strategies of non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation.J. Corp. Citizenship 58, 67–84 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hartmann, A. & Linn, J. F. Scaling Up: a Framework and Lessons for Development Effectiveness from Literature and Practice (Wolfensohn Center for Development, 2008).

  38. Geels, F. W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lambin, E. F., Kim, H., Leape, J. & Lee, K. Scaling up solutions for a sustainability transition. One Earth 3, 89–96 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nielsen, K. S. et al. How psychology can help limit climate change. Am. Psychol. 76, 130–144 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion 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. & Truffer, B. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41, 955–967 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tsing, A. L. On nonscalability: the living world is not amenable to precision-nested scales. Common Knowl. 18, 505–524 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pienkowski, T. et al. Supporting conservationists’ mental health through better working conditions. Conserv. Biol. 37, e14097 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Geels, F. W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 1, 24–40 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from medicine and public health. Conserv. Biol. 15, 50–54 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a framework for examining feasibility. One Earth 3, 325–336 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Romero-de-Diego, C. et al. Drivers of adoption and spread of wildlife management initiatives in Mexico. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e438 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Lewis-Brown, E. et al. The importance of future generations and conflict management in conservation.Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e488 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Clark, M., Andrews, J. & Hillis, V. A quantitative application of diffusion of innovations for modeling the spread of conservation behaviors. Ecol. Model. 473, 110145 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Abernethy, K. E., Bodin, Ö., Olsson, P., Hilly, Z. & Schwarz, A. Two steps forward, two steps back: the role of innovation in transforming towards community-based marine resource management in Solomon Islands. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 309–321 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Pannell, D. J. et al. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46, 1407–1424 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sutherland, W. J. & Wordley, C. F. R. Evidence complacency hampers conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1215–1216 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Steg, L. & Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Mahajan, S. L. et al. A theory-based framework for understanding the establishment, persistence, and diffusion of community-based conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e299 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Cook, C. N., Pullin, A. S., Sutherland, W. J., Stewart, G. B. & Carrasco, L. R. Considering cost alongside the effectiveness of management in evidence-based conservation: a systematic reporting protocol. Biol. Conserv. 209, 508–516 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Clark, M., Hamad, H. M., Andrews, J., Hillis, V. & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. Quantifying local perceptions of environmental change and links to community-based conservation practices. Conserv. Biol. 38, e14259 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Caro, T. & Ngwali, A. S. A silver lining to REDD: institutional growth despite programmatic failure. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e312 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 diffusion: a systematic literature review of innovation scaling. Sustainability 13, 13528 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Lenton, T. M. et al. Operationalising positive tipping points towards global sustainability. Glob. Sustain. 5, e1 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Dandy, N., Fiorini, S. & Davies, A. L. Agenda-setting and power in collaborative natural resource management. Environ. Conserv. 41, 311–320 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Shibaike, T. Small NGOs and agenda-setting in global conservation governance: the case of pangolin conservation. Glob. Environ. Polit. 22, 45–69 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Tallis, H. & Lubchenco, J. Working together: a call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515, 27–28 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Sandbrook, C. Weak yet strong: the uneven power relations of conservation. Oryx 51, 379–380 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Crosman, K. M., Singh, G. G. & Lang, S. Confronting complex accountability in conservation with communities. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 709423 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Bluwstein, J. & Lund, J. F. Territoriality by conservation in the Selous–Niassa Corridor in Tanzania. World Dev. 101, 453–465 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Schetter, C., Mkutu, K. & Müller-Koné, M. Frontier NGOs: conservancies, control, and violence in northern Kenya. World Dev. 151, 105735 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

  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 effectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12640 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Tradeoffs in carbon commodification: a political ecology of common property forest governance. Geoforum 67, 64–77 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Rocliffe, 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. McCarthy, M. A. & Possingham, H. P. Active adaptive management for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 21, 956–963 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Wigboldus, S. et al. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 46 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Project portfolio. Green Climate Fund https://www.greenclimate.fund/projects?f=field_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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Le Cornu, E. et al. Conceptualizing responsible exits in conservation philanthropy. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, e12868 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Razafimahatratra, 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Growing Trees, Growing Leaders! Farmer-Powered, Time-Tested Afforestation 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Benjamin, E. O. & Sauer, J. The cost effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services—smallholders and agroforestry in Africa. Land Use Policy 71, 293–302 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. De Giusti, G., Kristjanson, P. & Rufino, M. C. Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation practice in smallholder farming: evidence from Kenya. Climatic Change 153, 379–394 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Buxton, J. et al. Community-driven tree planting greens the neighbouring landscape. Sci. Rep. 11, 18239 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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 information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Thomas Pienkowski, Arundhati Jagadish.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Thomas Pienkowski, Gloria Christelle Blaise, Alec Philip Christie, Matt Clark, Abha Joglekar & Morena Mills

  2. The Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA

    Arundhati Jagadish

  3. Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India

    Arundhati Jagadish

  4. Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY, USA

    Willow Battista

  5. Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Gloria Christelle Blaise

  6. Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Alec Philip Christie

  7. Downing College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Alec Philip Christie

  8. Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Antony Philip Emenyu & Tom Powell

  9. Department of Management, Society and Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Kristian Steensen Nielsen

  10. Department of Biology and Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Thomas White

  11. The Biodiversity Consultancy, Cambridge, UK

    Thomas White

Authors
  1. Thomas Pienkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arundhati Jagadish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Willow Battista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gloria Christelle Blaise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alec Philip Christie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matt Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Antony Philip Emenyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Abha Joglekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kristian Steensen Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tom Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Thomas White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Morena Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Thomas Pienkowski or Arundhati Jagadish.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks George Holmes, Vanessa Adams and Seerp Wigboldus for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pienkowski, T., Jagadish, A., Battista, W. et al. Five lessons for avoiding failure when scaling in conservation. Nat Ecol Evol 8, 1804–1814 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02507-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing