Our findings highlight that while global policy increasingly emphasizes fairer and more equitable governance, implementation on the ground remains inconsistent and often problematic. As the perspectives on how fairly sites were being governed varied between interested parties, this study emphasises that equity is not a one-size-fits-all concept. It must be understood and implemented in context, with the voices of local communities at the centre.
Naira Dehmel, Department of Geography
05 August 2025
Global target of fair and inclusive conservation remains a challenge, says study
Despite strong international commitments to equity and justice in conservation areas by 2030, implementation remains a challenge
Conservation projects that try to avoid conflict and include local people still struggle with equity and upholding Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights, according to new research from King’s.
Existing global agreements include pledges to reduce the harm conservation can cause to local communities and to make sure they can take part in decisions, whilst fully respecting their rights.
However, there is significant variability in how conservation areas are governed around the globe, which the authors say raise urgent questions about fairness, inclusion, and the rights of local people.
Published in Conservation Biology, the study - led by Naira Dehmel of King’s College London and co-authored by a global team of researchers and practitioners - analysed equity assessments from 37 protected and conserved areas across 19 countries.
The research comes at a critical time, as under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, countries have committed to protecting 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030 - but with a clear mandate that these areas must be “equitably governed.”
One of the most striking findings is that mitigating the negative impacts of conservation on local communities was the most frequently cited challenge across sites.
However, perceptions of fairness varied widely among stakeholders. Decision-makers often rated governance more positively than local users, revealing a disconnect that could undermine trust and long-term conservation success.
The study also found that conservation sites governed by or with Indigenous Peoples and local communities tended to score better on equity measures than those governed solely by government agencies.
This new research draws on data from the Site-level Assessment of Governance and Equity (SAGE), a participatory tool designed to evaluate conservation governance through three key dimensions of equity: distributional (how benefits and burdens are shared), procedural (how decisions are made), and recognitional (how rights and identities are respected).
The team conducted the first meta-analysis of SAGE assessments, and they argue that tools like SAGE are essential for moving beyond top-down conservation models and toward more inclusive, just, and effective approaches.
They also caution that while global databases and metrics are useful, the real value lies in site-level dialogue and action.
Co-author Professor Kate Schreckenberg said: “As the world races to meet ambitious conservation targets, this study serves as a timely reminder: protecting nature must not come at the cost of human rights.”
Top image: KWCA
Read the paper:
Dehmel, N., Schreckenberg, K., et al. (2025). Insights from equitable governance assessments in conservation areas around the world. Conservation Biology, e70101. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70101
In this story
PhD student
Head, Department of Geography