ReviewNature ecology & evolution2024
Five lessons for avoiding failure when scaling in conservation.
Review in Nature ecology & evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unifying bright spots research for people and nature.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Review
- Diagnosing scaling bottlenecks in 10 community conservation initiatives in southern and eastern Africa.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Indigenous knowledge on the uses and conservation of medicinal plants in Namutumba District, Eastern Uganda.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Conservation abandonment is a policy blind spot.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Policy principles for sustainable and just land systems.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Navigating scale and interdisciplinary dynamics in conservation social science.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39242871What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.