ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Enabling conditions for conservation on Indigenous and community lands.
Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enabling conditions for conservation on Indigenous and community lands.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite increasing evidence and general acceptance in global environmental policy of the significant role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IP&LC) in biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation, an implementation gap remains between global policy and how conservation plays out on the ground. One reason for this discrepancy may be the lack of a coherent evidence base on how best to support the contributions of IP&LC to conservation. Enabling conditions are often discussed in conservation policy, but the diverse factors that may enable or disable Indigenous and community conservation are frequently not considered in empirical studies of conservation outcomes. We explored the enabling conditions and ecological outcomes of conservation that are measured or reported in the literature on forested lands held by IP&LC and identified gaps and biases in the current knowledge base. We searched 3 bibliographic databases and screened the results for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria, reviewing 182 articles. Articles examined the effects of 20 enabling conditions on 11 ecological outcomes. The more frequently explored links were between the enabling conditions-governance and law and policy-and the outcomes-forest cover and forest quality. Key knowledge gaps were the impacts of enabling conditions on species-level outcomes and certain ecosystem services, such as soil and water quality and carbon sequestration. Priorities for future reviews include in-depth examinations of the linkages we identified and the quality of evidence that exists. Understanding how IP&LC can best be supported is a critical step in promoting rights-based approaches, as set out in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.