ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Lessons learned from screening potential other effective area-based conservation measures.
Article 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.
- Lessons learned from screening potential other effective area-based conservation measures.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) are sites that deliver effective biodiversity outcomes irrespective of their management objectives. These areas are widely expected to play an important role in efforts to protect 30% of Earth by 2030. Despite general guidance to support screening sites against the formal criteria to be OECMs, progress recognizing sites has been limited. To advance the ability to identify OECMs, we developed a questionnaire that translates the components of the broad formal guidance into statements that experts can use to screen potential OECMs. Twenty-eight local experts used the questionnaire to evaluate a large global sample of 81 sites. Most sites evaluated were largely in good condition and had the potential to achieve conservation outcomes, but none met the criteria to be considered OECMs. The most common challenges are related to threat management, adequate resourcing, and the ability to demonstrate that governance and management are achieving effective and sustained conservation outcomes. Based on the formal International Union for Conservation of Nature guidance, sites that only partially meet the relevant criteria remain candidate OECMs. Our questionnaire provides a nuanced way to assess OECMs that can help identify what support sites need to meet the necessary criteria. With effective long-term conservation outcomes unable to be demonstrated for so many important conservation areas, our findings raise important questions about how to ensure area-based conservation promotes positive and sustained outcomes for biodiversity.
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.