Scaling out community conservation initiatives: experts identify economic and social benefits, compatibility with needs and external support as key

Scaling out community conservation initiatives: experts identify economic and social benefits, compatibility with needs and external support as key | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Scaling out community conservation initiatives: experts identify economic and social benefits, compatibility with needs and external support as key Morena Mills, Marie V. Touchon, Elisa Denis, Sarah Milligan, Yasmeen Zuffetti, and 12 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575146/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Community-based natural resource management is a common strategy for conserving biodiversity, but little is known about how such initiatives can scale appropriately and widely. We interviewed 80 experts across 5 widely adopted community-based initiatives (in Chile, Nepal, Namibia, Madagascar and Fiji) to understand their perspectives on the drivers of adoption and spread. We used General Elimination Methodology and Diffusion of Innovation theory to identify and rule out possible explanations. Factors consistently considered influential were economic and social benefits; compatibility with needs; support and facilitation by extension agencies; and the presence of international organisations. Initiatives aiming to scale should be designed to be flexible and aligned with adopters’ needs and external organisations should coordinate resources for scaling out. Dependence on external support underscores the need for quality assistance, good practices by external actors, and understanding power relations and fairness, as well as the need to temper donor and policy expectations of scaling beyond supported and appropriate sites. Conservation Biology Adoption Community-based conservation Scaling Diffusion of Innovation theory General Elimination Methodology Conservation decision-making Nature-based solutions Conservation policy Innovation CBNRM Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Scaling resource management by Indigenous peoples and local communities is essential to improve both the effectiveness and equity of actions taken to mitigate the biodiversity crisis (e.g., Dawson et al. 2021 ). Adoption of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) initiatives, where resource rights are fully or partly devolved to local communities (e.g. Armitage 2005 ), often involves changes in norms and practices, such as establishing principles around collective action, social justice, and conflict resolution (Lawless et al. 2020 ; Steenbergen et al. 2022 ). Scaling CBNRM to reach a greater number of people and places will involve expanding and adapting resource management initiatives, rather than exact replication across sites (Hartmann and Linn 2008 ; Measham and Lumbasi 2013 ). While there is widespread recognition of the importance of CBNRM initiatives, understanding why they spread remains limited (Mahajan et al. 2021 ; Mascia and Mills 2018 ), constraining practitioners’ ability to design CBNRM initiatives that can be appropriately scaled and sustained over time (Mahajan et al. 2021 ; Salerno et al. 2021 ). Research on adoption and spread of CBNRM suggests that initiative, adopter, and contextual characteristics influence spatial and temporal patterns of adoption (e.g., Jagadish et al. 2024 ; Romero-de‐Diego et al. 2021 ). However, the scientific community are yet to identify factors that are important across different initiatives and systems (e.g., forests, fisheries) and generate insights to support CBNRM more broadly. Communities engage with resource management for various reasons (Jupiter et al. 2014 ; Lewis‐Brown et al. 2021), but how these drivers vary through time and space has not been investigated. Comparative research spanning a variety of case studies and systems is needed to distil which factors consistently influence the scaling of CBNRM initiatives (Mascia and Mills 2018 ). Here, we ask what drives the adoption and spread of five widely recognised CBNRM initiatives: Territorial Use Rights Fishing in Chile, Locally Managed Marine Areas in Fiji and Madagascar, Communal Conservancies in Namibia, and Community Forestry in Nepal (Fig. 1 , Table 1 ). These initiatives govern fisheries, forestry, and wildlife and are managed by fishing organisations, villages, and community groups, respectively. We use General Elimination Methodology (GEM) and expert interviews to identify the most influential factors driving adoption and spread of these 5 CBNRM initiatives and highlight the implications of our findings for future conservation research, policy, and practice. Methods We use GEM to systematically identify and rule out alternative causal explanations of the observed outcomes (White and Phillips 2012 ). GEM is a qualitative evaluation method designed to attribute cause and effect where there are limited baseline data, small sample sizes, or when experimental methods are unfeasible (Scriven 2008 ; White and Phillips 2012 ).For all case studies, the outcome of interest was the adoption and spread of the CBNRM initiative. GEM is based on the principle that all events have a cause or a set of causes. This methodology systematically identifies and then rules out alternative causal explanations of the observed outcomes (White and Phillips 2012 ). GEM outlines the logical steps to guide evaluations but does not specify the tools used within the evaluation; the researcher makes this decision (White and Phillips 2012 ). In this study we searched Web of Science, Google Scholar, and initiative-related websites to identify existing peer-reviewed and grey literature associated with each case study initiative (Table 1 ), which we then reviewed to identify a list of possible explanations or causes of adoption. Initially, we organized these explanations using the factors within the Diffusion of Innovation Theory framework (Table 2 , modified from Mahajan et al. 2021 ); explanations that did not match this framework were included as additional factors. We used Diffusion of Innovation theory as a guiding framework as it incorporates variables that could influence adoption at various scales, providing a relatively holistic understanding of what drives adoption (Mascia and Mills 2018 ; Rogers 2003 ). For each initiative, we then conducted semi-structured interviews with experts involved in research and implementation of each initiative who had a regional or initiative-wide perspective. Interviewees worked for government agencies, intergovernmental agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancies, and universities (Table 1 , Supplementary Table 1 for details). Experts represented one initiative only and interviews were conducted between 2020–2022. Initially, we used purposive, maximum variation sampling to capture different viewpoints (Palinkas et al. 2015 ). We identified experts through the literature and internet searches on each initiative. We followed this with snowball sampling and worked towards data saturation (Newing et al. 2011 ). We held interviews in Spanish and English for Terrestrial User Right Fishing initiative in Chile, in French and English for the Locally Managed Marine Area initiative in Madagascar, and in English for Fiji, Namibia and Nepal. For Chile, Fiji, Madagascar, and Namibia, the interviews were conducted in one of the country’s official languages. However, not all people in Fiji, Madagascar, and Namibia speak these official languages, biasing our sample of experts. Additionally, COVID-19 restrictions on travel and in-person interactions meant that most interviews were conducted online via video calls, apart from in Namibia. Consequently, our sample of experts was also biased towards those with internet access. Most interviewees (n = 80) were men (74%), based in-country (78%) and with over 5 years of experience with the initiative (84%), with some having been involved with the initiatives for decades (see Table 1 for number of interviews per case study and Supplementary Table 1 for details on individual interviewees). The semi-structured interviews included two main sections. The first involved open-ended questions focused on the participants’ experience with the CBNRM initiative. The second was a pile sorting activity where participants identified the most important factors (< 15) influencing the adoption and spread of the initiative and discussed relationships among these factors. During the activity, we presented participants with a list of potential factors influencing the adoption of initiatives based on the literature review and Diffusion of Innovation Theory. To maintain consistency, we included 40 factors adapted from the Diffusion of Innovation Theory for all case studies, adapting wording and definitions to case studies but aiming to be consistent (Table 2 ). The one exception to this was Communal Conservancies in Namibia, the first initiative we worked on, where we only used the factors supported by the literature on the initiative. We were testing our method in the Namibia case, aiming to strike a balance between being as detailed as possible while not having too many variables so that the interviewees would be overwhelmed. We opted to include all the variables in the other initiative interviews to comprehensively test the theory. Participants could also add additional factors if they thought influential factors were missing. In this study, we present the results of our pile sorting activity, complemented by the associated narrative, as they provide the most consistent comparison across our various case studies. If interviewees did not complete the pile sorting activity but spoke about the factors driving adoption in the remainder of the interview, we included this information for those participants. We used deductive content analysis (White and Marsh 2006 ) to code the qualitative questions in each interview based on the Diffusion of Innovation Theory framework (including all the codes in Table 2 ). We coded additional factors as they emerged. Coding was done (on Atlas.ti) by one person (MM) who undertook multiple rounds of coding to ensure consistency between case study codes. Another author recoded a random sample of the interviews to check codes were consistent and clear (92% agreement). The final step of the GEM is to reassess the evidence for which factors are present; this allows us to incorporate or rule out each possible driver (Table 2 ). Our search involved screening the sources we had collected for the review, updating the review and reading through documents shared with us by interviewees to corroborate the presence of the factors identified. In practice, no factors were removed after the interviewees had made their selections, as all were supported by initiative documentation. Results Interviewees identified numerous factors that they perceived to have influenced the initiative adoption and spread (Fig. 2 , Supplementary Table 1). Most factors were associated with characteristics of the initiative and its context; adopter characteristics were generally perceived as less influential. In at least one of our five case study initiatives, more than two-thirds of the respondents highlighted the importance of these innovation characteristics: relative economic, social, and environmental benefit; compatibility with adopters’ needs, values and beliefs; flexibility, and; visibility. Given the same threshold, the most important contextual characteristics were environmental conditions; supportive national policies; extension support and facilitation; presence of champions; presence of international organisations; and learning processes (Fig. 2 ). The only adopter characteristics commonly perceived as influencing adoption were related to decision-making: the degree to which decisions were centralized or where people felt empowered to participate (Fig. 2 ). A few of the factors presented to interviewees had consistently low scores. For example, the adopter’s levels of education, familiarity with initiative, interconnectedness and access to modern communications systems; and the extent to which the initiative was reversible. While respondents identified a wide range of factors that influenced CBNRM adoption and spread, we focus the results on the factors identified as highly influential by over two-thirds of interviewees for a case study and across 3 or more case studies. These included the initiative’s economic and social benefits, compatibility with the adopters’ needs, extension support and facilitation and the presence of international organisations driving engagement. Interviewees said that the most important factors driving adoption vary with location, changes to the context, and as the initiatives evolve. Relative advantage of the CBNRM initiative For each of the five CBNRM initiatives we examined, experts reported that the initiative offered multiple benefits relative to status quo, including economic and social benefits, and these varied through space and time. Interviewees said most CBNRM initiatives were framed as an umbrella initiative within which the prospective adopters, typically influenced by support organisations, selected management actions that best suited their objectives. This set of actions represented the results of a negotiation between prospective adopters and support organisations. Experts perceived that social and economic benefits drive adoption and spread of the initiatives more commonly than environmental benefits (Fig. 2 ). Economic benefits varied depending on the initiative, but within our case studies, they included jobs, financial benefits (e.g., from trophy hunting), diversifying income, and access to commodities (e.g. vehicles). The most commonly reported social benefits were strengthened access to resources; these included improving resource accessibility (e.g. TURFs in Chile) and management rights (Locally Managed Marine Areas in Fiji). Improved access to education, hospitals, community livelihood funds, microcredit, and security were also mentioned as benefits. The diversity of benefits mattered, as our interviewees explained: They can be seen as a mechanism for political visibility or as a mechanism for bringing in money or as a way to organize your community or as a way to gain land or cement land control, or to bring in income, you know, so they can mean a lot of different things for different people. Perceived benefits changed over time. For example, economic benefits were perceived to drive early adoption (e.g. TURFs in Chile), while social prestige and tenure rights motivated those who engaged later. Some interviewees also highlighted the benefits and costs of adoption were often unequally distributed –with disproportionally high costs for women and marginalized community groups. Compatibility with adopter needs Our case study initiatives were largely seen as compatible with adopters’ current needs (Fig. 2 , Table 1 ). For example, TURFs in Chile were considered compatible because fishers wanted to access benthic resources, which they were prevented from harvesting between 1989 and 1992 to let stock recover from overfishing. Initiatives generally had elements of flexibility, allowing communities to reflect their priorities within the management plans (e.g. Community Forestry in Nepal, Locally Managed Marine Areas in Madagascar). One participant highlighted: an approach that works in one village doesn’t necessarily work in the other village. So compatibility is a big question Extension support and facilitation and presence of international organisations The spread of most initiatives was highly dependent on extension support and facilitation by support organisations, including governments and national and international organisations, consultancies, and universities. Support organisations played a critical role in implementing the first ‘pilot sites’ for initiatives, spreading information about the initiative, and supporting other organisations to engage. In many of our case studies, the establishment of the first site(s) associated with most initiatives was largely driven by donor funding and support organisations (e.g. LMMAs in Fiji, Community Forestry in Nepal, Community Conservancies in Namibia). Initial sites were carefully selected where the potential benefits of the initiative were most likely to occur. Interviewees from some initiatives highlighted the importance of the narrative of success for the initiative spread — communities would hear about the benefits obtained from other communities and want to join in. However, they also highlighted the danger of getting caught up in the narrative of success instead of continuously evaluating and improving the initiative. Interviewees said that the narrative often only represented the first few (carefully engineered) sites rather than the most common outcomes of the initiative when adopted at scale. All five initiatives were highly dependent on support to facilitate spread. Potential adopters learned about the initiatives via radio, extension officers, and “exposure tours” sponsored or facilitated by support organisations. Adopters also depended on support organisations for information about the initiative and for the resources involved in adoption and navigating bureaucratic steps. One interviewee highlighted. “I think the presence of an outside supporting organisation is very, very important. Whether that organisation is local, or international, I don’t think that makes a difference. The point is that they are providing support [...] However, while recognizing the important role of support organisations, interviewees highlighted the missed opportunity for the training of local communities and facilitating local leadership and that financial benefits were lost in the transaction: “I think it is very bad because in 20 years of management areas our fishermen know nothing about monitoring samples (...) or using Excel tables. We have lost a precious opportunity to (…) work strongly with fishers and improve their capabilities. It is so sad for me because I saw a lot of money go by, and I think we could have done a lot better.” “one of the many problems is that the external funding is, is going to NGOs, rather than to communities, because the communities [...] don’t have a bank account, for example, so it ends up in the association name or that kind of thing. So that external funding is being filtered through NGOs.” The quality and amount of support and facilitation by extension agencies were seen to play a critical role in the benefits adopters can derive from engaging with the initiative. Long-term engagement and coordination across support organisations were seen as critical for spread (e.g. Namibian communal conservancies), whereas competition by support organisations was a barrier. In time, many of the initiatives studied had grown beyond the reach of available support and into areas where the original intended (i.e. economic) benefits are less likely to occur. Discussion Understanding the process of CBNRM adoption and spread can help inform a more deliberate and just societal response to the global biodiversity crises (Clark et al. 2024 ; Gurney et al. 2021 ; Mascia and Mills 2018 ). In this study, experts identified social and economic benefits, compatibility with needs, extension support and facilitation, and presence of international organisations as critical in determining the spread of CBNRM across diverse case studies. Communities engaged with CBNRM initiatives for a wide range of social and economic benefits (also see Jupiter et al. 2014 ; Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015 ). CBNRM initiatives typically consist of a bundle of activities, principles, processes, and practices (Steenbergen et al. 2022 ), and motives for adopting initiatives vary among social groups, places, and over time (Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015 ). The specific design of initiatives implemented within sites – and thus their potential costs and benefits – typically emerged from a negotiation between adopters (e.g. communities) and support organisations. The degree to which these are realised depends on compliance, which in turn depends on local support. These diverse benefits and costs are different between settings and social groups (though benefits tend to accrue among elites; e.g., Saito-Jensen et al. 2010 ) and vary in the extent to which they are captured by individuals or dispersed. While incentives often focus on financial benefits, the balance between the various costs and benefits of adoption for a particular community and overall advantage is more likely to determine the likelihood an initiative is to scale (Jagadish et al. 2024 ; Lewis-Brown et al. 2021 ). More studies tracking the extent to which these benefits have been realized (e.g. O’Garra et al. 2023 ), their distribution and the adopter’s satisfaction with the impacts are needed as they will inform both the likelihood of independent adoption and the extent to which initiatives require additional supporting mechanisms like community pressure or regulation (e.g. Davis et al. 2017 ). The anticipated benefits of adoption, and the time frames over which these emerged, vary widely within and among initiatives and contexts. Accordingly, a flexible portfolio of management options that communities can choose from to align with local needs are critical for widespread adoption. For example, two communities may join a fisheries focused initiative, but community A may choose to implement gear restrictions in an area to deliver fisheries benefits while community B may choose to implement a no-fishing area because they believe it may attract tourists. Funders and financiers play outsized roles in setting the scaling agenda in conservation (Pienkowski et al. 2024 ); but, whilst well-intentioned, donors are unlikely to understand local needs, contexts and interests (Shackleton et al. 2002 ). Our study also found that support organisations and the presence of international organisations (representing access to resources and technology) were seen as crucial to the adoption and spread of the initiatives. Support organisations played a range of roles considered key for scaling initiaitves: sharing information; mediating the flow of funding between donors and adopters; providing resources and technical capacity to enable adoption; brokering interactions between local actors, and advocating for or developing legislation that decentralized resource use rights (e.g., Jagers et al. 2020 ; Moore et al. 2015 ). Critically, the ways in which support organisations work and interact with communities will likely influence initiatives’ adoption, spread, and impacts. Through the engagement process, for example, initiatives will either reinforce or transform existing norms (e.g., around women participation, Lawless et al. 2020 ) and influence perceptions of fairness, thus affecting the extent to which projects are sustained (Ostrom 1990 ). Negotiations around misaligned support organisations and community goals may erode community motivations for participation (Measham and Lumbasi 2013 ). Finally, external organisations can face pressures to scale (e.g. to secure continued funding) that may incentivize unethical or coercive scaling approaches, undermining long-term outcomes (Pienkowski et al. 2024 ). Our study did not explicitly explore these complexities, and more research is needed to understand how power, fairness, and equity issues influence scaling dynamics and outcomes, especially given that support and international organisations are seen to play such a critical role in scaling. Finally, while biasing pilot studies to locations where the positive impact is most likely may be useful to demonstrate success and learn, it may also mean that the viability of the initiative is likely to decline over time so adoption rates will likely slow, and abandonments rise among later adopters. While examples and narratives of success are useful for encouraging spread, they are counterproductive if they do not encourage learning or misinform future potential adopters. Our study also highlighted the need for external organisations to coordinate and collaborate in their efforts to help support community conservation initiatives. If, as suggested by interviewees, the provision of support (e.g. via provision of finance, administrative support or helping to organise workshops) is necessary, the initiative will be inherently limited by the amount and duration of support. Thus, donor and policy expectations of scaling need to be tempered, and the provision of quality long-term extension support needs to be prioritised. Initiatives that provide big and relevant benefits, are simple, build capacity and can be community-led may be more likely to be adopted and sustained in the long-term. Future research priorities GEM can be a powerful qualitative attribution method for understanding the processes leading to an outcome (Zavaleta Cheek et al. 2023 ). The reliability of this method partly depends on capturing and interrogating evidence and perspectives from a breadth of actors (Boissat et al. 2021 ). Most participants were NGO representatives, many of whom were involved in implementing the interventions. Consequently, our results may reflect pro-innovation biases (i.e. those championing innovations are less likely to see their weaknesses and costs, Rogers 2003 ), vested interests (i.e. potential strategic reporting to present initiatives favourably) and confirmation bias (interpreting observations in a way that confirms their prior beliefs). Future studies should focus on community perspectives and test the expert opinions on what factors were critical for initiatives to go to scale. Future studies should also investigate the extent to which adopters are engaging in the initiative as a response to a particular incentive or action as opposed to the package offered by the initiative. Language biases could also be tackled with broader language expertise within the research team. Conclusion Mitigation of the biodiversity crisis requires large-scale adoption of conservation and restoration initiatives, including CBNRM. We used a qualitative evaluation methodology to identify factors that conservation practitioners see as critical to the adoption and spread of five CBNRM initiatives. Our interviewees perceived that social and economic benefits, compatibility with needs, support and facilitation provided by extension agencies, and the presence of international organisations played a critical role in the spread of CBNRM initiatives across case studies. To meet the scale of the existing biodiversity challenge, we suggest conservation practitioners design flexible initiatives aligned with adopters’ needs and that deliver a range of economic and social benefits. We also suggest they collaborate and coordinate to scale out effective community-driven initiatives to ensure the best use of limited resources. The urgency of the challenge will require learning by doing and research on initiatives beyond CBNRM. Declarations This study was approved by ethics committee at Imperial College London; informed consent was given by all individual participants included in this study. References Armitage D. (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental management 35 , 703-715. Binod B. (2016) Community forest and forest management in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Protection 4 , 79. Boissat L., Thomas‐Walters L., Veríssimo D. (2021) Nature documentaries as catalysts for change: Mapping out the ‘Blackfish Effect’. People and Nature 3 , 1179-1192. Clark M., Pienkowski T., Jagadish A. et al. (2024) Forecasting adoption with epidemiological models can enable adaptively scaling out conservation. One Earth 7 , 1820-1832. Davis K.J., Kragt M.E., Gelcich S., Burton M., Schilizzi S., Pannell D.J. (2017) Why are Fishers not Enforcing Their Marine User Rights? Environmental and Resource Economics 67 , 661-681. Dawson N.M., Coolsaet B., Sterling E.J. et al. (2021) The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and Society 26 , 19. Dhungana N., Lee C.-H., Khadka C., Adhikari S., Pudasaini N., Ghimire P. (2024) Evaluating Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) Performance in Managing Community Forests: A Case Study in Central Nepal. Sustainability 16 , 4471. Gelcich S., Cinner J., Donlan C.J., Tapia-Lewin S., Godoy N., Castilla J.C. (2017) Fishers' perceptions on the Chilean coastal TURF system after two decades: problems, benefits, and emerging needs. Bulletin of Marine Science 93 , 53-67. Govan H., Tawake A., Tabunakawai K. et al. (2009) Status and potential of locally-managed marine areas in the South Pacific: meeting nature conservation and sustainable livelihood targets through wide-spread implementation of LMMAs: Study Report. p. 95pp + 95 annexes. SPREP/WWF/WorldFish-Reefbase/CRISP. Greenhalgh T., Robert G., Bate P., Macfarlane F., Kyriakidou O. (2008) Diffusion of innovations in health service organisations: a systematic literature review . Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Maden, MA. Gurney G.G., Darling E.S., Ahmadia G.N. et al. (2021) Biodiversity needs every tool in the box: use OECMs. 595 , 646-649. Hartmann A., Linn J.F. (2008) Scaling up: a framework and lessons for development effectiveness from literature and practice. Wolfensohn Center for Development Working Paper . Hemming V., Burgman M.A., Hanea A.M., McBride M.F., Wintle B.C. (2018) A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9 , 169-180. Jagadish A., Freni-Sterrantino A., He Y. et al. (2024) Scaling Indigenous-led natural resource management. Global Environmental Change 84 , 102799. Jagers S.C., Harring N., Löfgren Å. et al. (2020) On the preconditions for large-scale collective action. Ambio 49 , 1282-1296. Jupiter S.D., Cohen P.J., Weeks R., Tawake A., Govan H. (2014) Locally-managed marine areas: multiple objectives and diverse strategies. Pacific Conservation Biology 20 , 165-179. Lawless S., Song A.M., Cohen P.J., Morrison T.H. (2020) Rights, equity and justice: A diagnostic for social meta-norm diffusion in environmental governance. Earth System Governance 6 , 100052. Lewis‐Brown E., Beatty H., Davis K. et al. (2021) The importance of future generations and conflict management in conservation. Conservation Science and Practice 3 , e488. Mahajan S.L., Jagadish A., Glew L. et al. (2021) A theory‐based framework for understanding the establishment, persistence, and diffusion of community‐based conservation. Conservation Science and Practice 3 , e299. Mascia M.B., Mills M. (2018) When conservation goes viral: The diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and practices. Conservation Letters 11 , e12442. Measham T.G., Lumbasi J.A. (2013) Success factors for community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): Lessons from Kenya and Australia. Environmental management 52 , 649-659. MEFT/NASCO. (2019) The state of community conservation in Namibia. Annual Report 2019: a review of communal conservancies, community forestry and other CBNRM initiatives. MIHARI. (2020) Guide de Référence Des Aires Marines Gérées Localment (LMMA) à Madagascar. Antananarivo, Madagascar. MIHARI. (2023) Mihari Gestion Locale des Resources Marines - Reseau Madagascar. Moore M.-L., Riddell D., Vocisano D. (2015) Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep: strategies of non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship , 67-84. Newing H., Eagle C., Puri R.K., Watson C. (2011) Conducting research in conservation . Routledge Oxfordshire. O’Garra T., Mangubhai S., Jagadish A. et al. (2023) National-level evaluation of a community-based marine management initiative. Nature Sustainability 6 , 908-918. Ostrom E. (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action . Cambridge university press. Palinkas L.A., Horwitz S.M., Green C.A., Wisdom J.P., Duan N., Hoagwood K. (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research 42 , 533-544. Pannell D.J., Marshall G.R., Barr N., Curtis A., Vanclay F., Wilkinson R. (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian journal of experimental agriculture 46 , 1407-1424. Pienkowski T., Jagadish A., Battista W. et al. (2024) Five lessons to avoid failing at scaling in conservation. Nature Ecology and Evolution 8 , 1804–1814. Rogers E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations . Free Press, New York. Romero‐de‐Diego C., Dean A., Jagadish A., Witt B., Mascia M.B., Mills M. (2021) Drivers of adoption and spread of wildlife management initiatives in Mexico. Conservation Science and Practice 3 , e438. Ruiz-Mallén I., Schunko C., Corbera E., Rös M., Reyes-García V. (2015) Meanings, drivers, and motivations for community-based conservation in Latin America. Ecology and Society 20 . Saito-Jensen M., Nathan I., Treue T. (2010) Beyond elite capture? Community-based natural resource management and power in Mohammed Nagar village, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Conservation 37 , 327-335. Salerno J., Romulo C., Galvin K.A., Brooks J., Mupeta‐Muyamwa P., Glew L. (2021) Adaptation and evolution of institutions and governance in community‐based conservation. Conservation Science and Practice 3 , e355. Scriven M. (2008) A summative evaluation of RCT methodology: An alternative approach to causal research. Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation 5 , 11-24. Shackleton S., Campbell B., Wollenberg E., Edmunds D. (2002) Devolution and community-based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit. Natural resource perspectives 76 , 1-6. Steenbergen D.J., Song A.M., Andrew N. (2022) A theory of scaling for community-based fisheries management. Ambio 51 , 666-677. Stephanson S.L., Mascia M.B. (2014) Putting people on the map through an approach that integrates social data in conservation planning. Conservation biology 28 , 1236-1248. Walker J.L. (1969) The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American political science review 63 , 880-899. Wejnert B. (2002) Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual review of sociology 28 , 297-326. White H., Phillips D. (2012) Addressing attribution of cause and effect in small n impact evaluations: towards an integrated framework. in N.D.I.I.f.I. Evaluation editor. White M.D., Marsh E.E. (2006) Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library trends 55 , 22-45. Zavaleta Cheek J., Eklund J., Merten N., Brooks J., Miller D.C. (2023) A guide to qualitative attribution methods for evaluation in conservation. Conservation Biology 37 , e14071. Tables Table 1 Background information on case studies. Geography Chile Nepal Namibia Fiji Madagascar Name of the initiative Territorial Use Rights in fisheries Community Forestry Communal Conservancies Locally Managed Marine Areas Locally Managed Marine Areas Resources being managed Fisheries Forestry Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Goals/ objectives To sustainably manage and use the benthic resources in marine areas (Gelcich et al. 2017 ) To meet the subsistence needs of local people and protect the forest (Binod 2016 ) To conserve and protect the environment and sustainably use natural resources (MEFT/NASCO 2019 ) To manage and sustainably use marine resources (Govan et al. 2009 ) To promote the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources, managed or co-managed by local communities (MIHARI 2020 ) Year initiated 1991 1987 1998 2000 2006 Number of adopters 450 active TURFs (Gelcich et al. 2017 ) 23,682 Community Forest Groups (Dhungana et al. 2024 ) 86 conservancies (MEFT/NASCO 2019 ) 352 villages (O’Garra et al. 2023 ) 178 Locally Managed Marine Areas (MIHARI 2020 ), 25 partner NGOs (MIHARI 2023 ) Number of interviewees 19 21 14 6 17 Table 2 Diffusion of Innovation theory factors included in the interviews (modified from Mahajan et al. 2021 ). Dimensions Expected association with adoption Definition Source Relative economic benefits Positive Net economic benefit as perceived by the adopter - e.g. including consideration of costs and benefits over the long-term Pannell et al. ( 2006 ); Rogers ( 2003 ) Relative social benefits Positive Social benefits as perceived by the adopter. Examples include food security, health security, and tenure security Rogers ( 2003 ) Relative gain of social prestige Positive Gain in social prestige and political empowerment as a result of adoption of the innovation Rogers ( 2003 ) Relative environmental benefits Positive Ecological benefits as perceived by the adopter, includes improvements to the resource base and improved environmental conditions Pannell et al. ( 2006 ) Perceived risks Negative Degree of uncertainty around adoption outcomes or unintended consequences Pannell et al. ( 2006 ) Initial costs Negative Relate to monetary and non direct or indirect costs, or risks associated with the adoption of an innovation Wejnert ( 2002 ), Rogers ( 2003 ) Immediacy of reward Positive Realizing the benefits of innovation adoption soon after adoption Rogers ( 2003 ) Compatibility with values and beliefs Positive An innovation that is compatible with deeply embedded cultural values and beliefs Rogers ( 2003 ) Compatibility with previously introduced ideas Positive Previous experience with adopted ideas provide a standard against which an innovation can be interpreted, thus decreasing uncertainty Rogers ( 2003 ) Compatibility with needs Positive Degree to which an innovation is perceived as meeting the needs of the adopters Rogers ( 2003 ) Compatibility with current practices Positive Degree to which an innovation is compatible with the current practices followed by the adopter Rogers ( 2003 ) Ease of understanding and use Positive The degree to which the innovation is perceived as relatively easy to understand and use Rogers ( 2003 ) Ability to partially implement practice before full adoption Positive The degree to which the practice may be experimented on a partial basis. Rogers ( 2003 ), Pannell et al. ( 2006 ) Ability to reject adoption and go back to status quo Positive The greater the degree to which the conservation action can be abandoned and the adopter can go back to a prior status Rogers ( 2003 ) Visibility of practice and results Positive The degree to which the results of the innovation are observable by others. Rogers ( 2003 ) Flexibility Positive The degree to which the adopters can tailor the conservation action to their needs (Greenhalgh et al. 2008 ); Pannell et al. ( 2006 ) Economic well-being Positive The resources people use to meet basic consumption and material needs and access other sources of well being Wejnert ( 2002 ) Education Positive The structures, systems, and practices - formal and informal - used to transfer knowledge and skills in a society (Stephanson and Mascia 2014 ) Risk orientation Positive Openness to new ideas and practices Wejnert ( 2002 ) Competition Positive The degree to which units within a system compete for resources, funds, ties to external agents, status Wejnert ( 2002 ), Rogers ( 2003 ) Familiarity with innovation Positive The familiarity associated with the innovation relates to how radical it is Rogers ( 2003 ), Wejnert ( 2002 ) Centralised decision-making Positive Degree to which power and control in a system are concentrated in the hands of a relatively few individuals Rogers ( 2003 ) Complexity (adequate skills, knowledge, and expertise) Positive Degree to which an organisation’s members possess relatively high level of knowledge and expertise, usually measured by the members’ range of occupational specialities and degree of professionalism Rogers ( 2003 ) Formalization (formal rules and procedures in place) Positive Degree to which the adopter emphasizes its members’ following the rules and procedures Rogers ( 2003 ) Interconnectedness Positive The degree to which the potential adopters interpersonal and organisational networks (including social density) can increase communication about the innovation Rogers ( 2003 ); (Walker 1969 ) Size Negative Size of the organisation making the decision to adopt or reject - number of people involved, budget, size of area served Rogers ( 2003 ) Political empowerment Positive People’s ability to participate in the decision-making processes that effect their lives Wejnert ( 2002 ) Environmental conditions Positive if compatible The degree to which the ecological infrastructures such as climate, weather, soil, landscape characteristics influence adoption Wejnert ( 2002 ) Proximity Positive The degree to which the geographical setting (e.g. weather) or proximity will influence the frequency of communication and interaction between actors or potential adopters and the innovation itself Wejnert ( 2002 ) Traditionalism Negative Associated with social inertia in adopting new practices and ideas Wejnert ( 2002 ) Similarity amongst population Positive if innovation already exists in the system degree of structural equivalence between transmitters and potential adopters Wejnert ( 2002 ) Learning processes/ Socialization Positive Mobilization of available societal talents of entrepreneurship, perseverance, determination, marketing skills that influence adoption through social learning processes Wejnert ( 2002 ) Political conditions - national policies Positive if compatible National and local policies which support the adoption and implementation of the innovation Wejnert ( 2002 ) Political conditions - bureaucracies Negative Wejnert ( 2002 ) Political conditions - political character Positive if compatible Existence of political freedoms and laws, trust in government Wejnert ( 2002 ) Extension support - support and facilitation Positive Presence of local organisations and extension support to communicate about and facilitate implementation of new ideas and practices Pannell et al. ( 2006 ) Extension support - presence of local champions Positive A charismatic individual who throws her or his weight behind an innovation, thus overcoming indifference or resistance that the new idea may provoke in an organisation Rogers ( 2003 ) Institutionalization (presence of targets, rules and incentives to promote widespread adoption) Positive The spread of rule-like behavioural models that are supported by common recipes and an implicit structure of incentives for the adoption of approved forms of practices, programs, or policies Wejnert ( 2002 ) Global Technology (Presence of international NGOs and corporations) Positive Global adoption of technological innovations, including agricultural and industrial practices, that is facilitated by the growth of multinational organisations, as well as by the generally low threshold of diffusion of technological innovations Wejnert ( 2002 ) World connectedness (Presence of communication systems like internet and access to social media) Positive Modern communication systems or media effects Wejnert ( 2002 ) Supplementary Tables Supplementary Table 1 is not available with this version Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5575146","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":385895950,"identity":"107f2757-67a7-4f14-8cbe-ecf733f5d9d7","order_by":0,"name":"Morena Mills","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9865-0770","institution":"Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Morena","middleName":"","lastName":"Mills","suffix":""},{"id":385895951,"identity":"0d9c7d2d-19ff-48e2-bfc9-bbe7a51a3b8e","order_by":1,"name":"Marie V. Touchon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marie","middleName":"V.","lastName":"Touchon","suffix":""},{"id":385895952,"identity":"1d70377b-84f9-4248-955c-644d1230ccd9","order_by":2,"name":"Elisa Denis","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elisa","middleName":"","lastName":"Denis","suffix":""},{"id":385895953,"identity":"608ee883-4ce7-47a3-baeb-dd533268eb71","order_by":3,"name":"Sarah Milligan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"","lastName":"Milligan","suffix":""},{"id":385895954,"identity":"fc34172d-e814-4e72-a6a2-de84d1ff021f","order_by":4,"name":"Yasmeen Zuffetti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yasmeen","middleName":"","lastName":"Zuffetti","suffix":""},{"id":385895955,"identity":"be23f711-7538-4a9c-b0fd-13ffb653813f","order_by":5,"name":"Zara Ahmad","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zara","middleName":"","lastName":"Ahmad","suffix":""},{"id":385895956,"identity":"68d4d480-d0f6-45b9-9a80-40d142992482","order_by":6,"name":"Zoya Husain","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zoya","middleName":"","lastName":"Husain","suffix":""},{"id":385895957,"identity":"48a03288-2372-4897-a1cb-aa28f8158262","order_by":7,"name":"Sushma Shrestha","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"- Conservation International, Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sushma","middleName":"","lastName":"Shrestha","suffix":""},{"id":385895958,"identity":"0bb821a8-4443-45c2-b389-cfb7b6e01cd4","order_by":8,"name":"Stefan Gelcich","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stefan","middleName":"","lastName":"Gelcich","suffix":""},{"id":385895959,"identity":"89dfbe90-2eeb-456c-9feb-44eae368ecb1","order_by":9,"name":"Selma Lendelvo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Life Sciences Division, Multidisciplinary Research Centre, University of Namibia","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Selma","middleName":"","lastName":"Lendelvo","suffix":""},{"id":385895960,"identity":"1e1fffea-4058-4672-887c-934e227bbe3d","order_by":10,"name":"Bharati Pathak","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federation of Community Forestry Users","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bharati","middleName":"","lastName":"Pathak","suffix":""},{"id":385895961,"identity":"0acf684d-de2a-4937-899e-3a68259fa5af","order_by":11,"name":"Alifereti Tawake","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Locally Managed Marine Area Network International Trust","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alifereti","middleName":"","lastName":"Tawake","suffix":""},{"id":385895962,"identity":"fdce4ae1-1060-4608-9979-9c6630a61233","order_by":12,"name":"Michael B. Mascia","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9874-9778","institution":"Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Michael","middleName":"B.","lastName":"Mascia","suffix":""},{"id":385895963,"identity":"fa70eaf1-6aba-4e72-abac-7f1afc3ee3ca","order_by":13,"name":"Solofo Nandrianina Ralaimihoatra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MIHARI","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Solofo","middleName":"Nandrianina","lastName":"Ralaimihoatra","suffix":""},{"id":385895964,"identity":"de578f82-94c0-4a25-9639-1f723d81191b","order_by":14,"name":"Thomas Pienkowski","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3803-7533","institution":"Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thomas","middleName":"","lastName":"Pienkowski","suffix":""},{"id":385895965,"identity":"53f0e9ec-478a-46e8-87ac-f3ed6d8248e9","order_by":15,"name":"Matthew Clark","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3217-1192","institution":"Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Matthew","middleName":"","lastName":"Clark","suffix":""},{"id":385895966,"identity":"380bbdb0-8e1e-4713-a45e-8f077911eda6","order_by":16,"name":"Arundhati Jagadish","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6360-6179","institution":"Nature Conservation Foundation","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Arundhati","middleName":"","lastName":"Jagadish","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-12-03 22:22:48","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"coiExplicitlySet":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575146/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575146/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":71157253,"identity":"9afc3fa7-b099-4921-a349-8e0846102f67","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-11 15:47:41","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":170384,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCase Study initiative locations: Terrestrial User Rights Fishing (Chile), Communal Conservancies (Namibia), Community Forestry (Nepal), Locally managed marine areas (Madagascar) and Locally Managed Marine Areas (Fiji). Photo copyright from left to right: Felipe Torres (Chile), NACSO/WWF Namibia (Namibia), Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal, FECOFUN (Nepal), Rebecca Weeks (Fiji), Hope Beatty (Madagascar).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575146/v1/6935f9eec53bff8e4b6e7631.jpeg"},{"id":71156650,"identity":"be20b504-00fb-45c3-9e3c-9d5693af132b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-11 15:39:41","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":243172,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe percentage of interviewees that mentioned each factor as important for determining the adoption and spread of each initiative. Number of respondents in parentheses. We only show results for the 14 factors identified as important by more than two-thirds of the interviewees for at least one case study.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575146/v1/a891c454a1275ec99ca53407.png"},{"id":71158222,"identity":"203311b1-279c-4503-a33e-31b0568b0092","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-11 15:55:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1206504,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575146/v1/1de3801e-c34c-4a4c-93c0-e3d03596c541.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScaling out community conservation initiatives: experts identify economic and social benefits, compatibility with needs and external support as key\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eScaling resource management by Indigenous peoples and local communities is essential to improve both the effectiveness and equity of actions taken to mitigate the biodiversity crisis (e.g., Dawson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Adoption of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) initiatives, where resource rights are fully or partly devolved to local communities (e.g. Armitage \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), often involves changes in norms and practices, such as establishing principles around collective action, social justice, and conflict resolution (Lawless et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Steenbergen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Scaling CBNRM to reach a greater number of people and places will involve expanding and adapting resource management initiatives, rather than exact replication across sites (Hartmann and Linn \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Measham and Lumbasi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). While there is widespread recognition of the importance of CBNRM initiatives, understanding why they spread remains limited (Mahajan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mascia and Mills \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), constraining practitioners\u0026rsquo; ability to design CBNRM initiatives that can be appropriately scaled and sustained over time (Mahajan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Salerno et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on adoption and spread of CBNRM suggests that initiative, adopter, and contextual characteristics influence spatial and temporal patterns of adoption (e.g., Jagadish et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Romero-de‐Diego et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, the scientific community are yet to identify factors that are important across different initiatives and systems (e.g., forests, fisheries) and generate insights to support CBNRM more broadly. Communities engage with resource management for various reasons (Jupiter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Lewis‐Brown et al. 2021), but how these drivers vary through time and space has not been investigated. Comparative research spanning a variety of case studies and systems is needed to distil which factors consistently influence the scaling of CBNRM initiatives (Mascia and Mills \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere, we ask what drives the adoption and spread of five widely recognised CBNRM initiatives: Territorial Use Rights Fishing in Chile, Locally Managed Marine Areas in Fiji and Madagascar, Communal Conservancies in Namibia, and Community Forestry in Nepal (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). These initiatives govern fisheries, forestry, and wildlife and are managed by fishing organisations, villages, and community groups, respectively. We use General Elimination Methodology (GEM) and expert interviews to identify the most influential factors driving adoption and spread of these 5 CBNRM initiatives and highlight the implications of our findings for future conservation research, policy, and practice.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methods","content":" \u003cp\u003eWe use GEM to systematically identify and rule out alternative causal explanations of the observed outcomes (White and Phillips \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). GEM is a qualitative evaluation method designed to attribute cause and effect where there are limited baseline data, small sample sizes, or when experimental methods are unfeasible (Scriven \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; White and Phillips \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).For all case studies, the outcome of interest was the adoption and spread of the CBNRM initiative. GEM is based on the principle that all events have a cause or a set of causes. This methodology systematically identifies and then rules out alternative causal explanations of the observed outcomes (White and Phillips \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). GEM outlines the logical steps to guide evaluations but does not specify the tools used within the evaluation; the researcher makes this decision (White and Phillips \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study we searched Web of Science, Google Scholar, and initiative-related websites to identify existing peer-reviewed and grey literature associated with each case study initiative (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), which we then reviewed to identify a list of possible explanations or causes of adoption. Initially, we organized these explanations using the factors within the Diffusion of Innovation Theory framework (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, modified from Mahajan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); explanations that did not match this framework were included as additional factors. We used Diffusion of Innovation theory as a guiding framework as it incorporates variables that could influence adoption at various scales, providing a relatively holistic understanding of what drives adoption (Mascia and Mills \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Rogers \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor each initiative, we then conducted semi-structured interviews with experts involved in research and implementation of each initiative who had a regional or initiative-wide perspective. Interviewees worked for government agencies, intergovernmental agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancies, and universities (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1 for details). Experts represented one initiative only and interviews were conducted between 2020\u0026ndash;2022.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitially, we used purposive, maximum variation sampling to capture different viewpoints (Palinkas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). We identified experts through the literature and internet searches on each initiative. We followed this with snowball sampling and worked towards data saturation (Newing et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). We held interviews in Spanish and English for Terrestrial User Right Fishing initiative in Chile, in French and English for the Locally Managed Marine Area initiative in Madagascar, and in English for Fiji, Namibia and Nepal. For Chile, Fiji, Madagascar, and Namibia, the interviews were conducted in one of the country\u0026rsquo;s official languages. However, not all people in Fiji, Madagascar, and Namibia speak these official languages, biasing our sample of experts. Additionally, COVID-19 restrictions on travel and in-person interactions meant that most interviews were conducted online via video calls, apart from in Namibia. Consequently, our sample of experts was also biased towards those with internet access. Most interviewees (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80) were men (74%), based in-country (78%) and with over 5 years of experience with the initiative (84%), with some having been involved with the initiatives for decades (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for number of interviews per case study and Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1 for details on individual interviewees).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe semi-structured interviews included two main sections. The first involved open-ended questions focused on the participants\u0026rsquo; experience with the CBNRM initiative. The second was a pile sorting activity where participants identified the most important factors (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;15) influencing the adoption and spread of the initiative and discussed relationships among these factors. During the activity, we presented participants with a list of potential factors influencing the adoption of initiatives based on the literature review and Diffusion of Innovation Theory. To maintain consistency, we included 40 factors adapted from the Diffusion of Innovation Theory for all case studies, adapting wording and definitions to case studies but aiming to be consistent (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The one exception to this was Communal Conservancies in Namibia, the first initiative we worked on, where we only used the factors supported by the literature on the initiative. We were testing our method in the Namibia case, aiming to strike a balance between being as detailed as possible while not having too many variables so that the interviewees would be overwhelmed. We opted to include all the variables in the other initiative interviews to comprehensively test the theory. Participants could also add additional factors if they thought influential factors were missing. In this study, we present the results of our pile sorting activity, complemented by the associated narrative, as they provide the most consistent comparison across our various case studies. If interviewees did not complete the pile sorting activity but spoke about the factors driving adoption in the remainder of the interview, we included this information for those participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe used deductive content analysis (White and Marsh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) to code the qualitative questions in each interview based on the Diffusion of Innovation Theory framework (including all the codes in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). We coded additional factors as they emerged. Coding was done (on Atlas.ti) by one person (MM) who undertook multiple rounds of coding to ensure consistency between case study codes. Another author recoded a random sample of the interviews to check codes were consistent and clear (92% agreement).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final step of the GEM is to reassess the evidence for which factors are present; this allows us to incorporate or rule out each possible driver (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Our search involved screening the sources we had collected for the review, updating the review and reading through documents shared with us by interviewees to corroborate the presence of the factors identified. In practice, no factors were removed after the interviewees had made their selections, as all were supported by initiative documentation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eInterviewees identified numerous factors that they perceived to have influenced the initiative adoption and spread (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1). Most factors were associated with characteristics of the initiative and its context; adopter characteristics were generally perceived as less influential. In at least one of our five case study initiatives, more than two-thirds of the respondents highlighted the importance of these innovation characteristics: relative economic, social, and environmental benefit; compatibility with adopters\u0026rsquo; needs, values and beliefs; flexibility, and; visibility. Given the same threshold, the most important contextual characteristics were environmental conditions; supportive national policies; extension support and facilitation; presence of champions; presence of international organisations; and learning processes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The only adopter characteristics commonly perceived as influencing adoption were related to decision-making: the degree to which decisions were centralized or where people felt empowered to participate (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). A few of the factors presented to interviewees had consistently low scores. For example, the adopter\u0026rsquo;s levels of education, familiarity with initiative, interconnectedness and access to modern communications systems; and the extent to which the initiative was reversible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile respondents identified a wide range of factors that influenced CBNRM adoption and spread, we focus the results on the factors identified as highly influential by over two-thirds of interviewees for a case study and across 3 or more case studies. These included the initiative\u0026rsquo;s economic and social benefits, compatibility with the adopters\u0026rsquo; needs, extension support and facilitation and the presence of international organisations driving engagement. Interviewees said that the most important factors driving adoption vary with location, changes to the context, and as the initiatives evolve.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRelative advantage of the CBNRM initiative\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor each of the five CBNRM initiatives we examined, experts reported that the initiative offered multiple benefits relative to status quo, including economic and social benefits, and these varied through space and time. Interviewees said most CBNRM initiatives were framed as an umbrella initiative within which the prospective adopters, typically influenced by support organisations, selected management actions that best suited their objectives. This set of actions represented the results of a negotiation between prospective adopters and support organisations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperts perceived that social and economic benefits drive adoption and spread of the initiatives more commonly than environmental benefits (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Economic benefits varied depending on the initiative, but within our case studies, they included jobs, financial benefits (e.g., from trophy hunting), diversifying income, and access to commodities (e.g. vehicles). The most commonly reported social benefits were strengthened access to resources; these included improving resource accessibility (e.g. TURFs in Chile) and management rights (Locally Managed Marine Areas in Fiji). Improved access to education, hospitals, community livelihood funds, microcredit, and security were also mentioned as benefits. The diversity of benefits mattered, as our interviewees explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThey can be seen as a mechanism for political visibility or as a mechanism for bringing in money or as a way to organize your community or as a way to gain land or cement land control, or to bring in income, you know, so they can mean a lot of different things for different people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived benefits changed over time. For example, economic benefits were perceived to drive early adoption (e.g. TURFs in Chile), while social prestige and tenure rights motivated those who engaged later. Some interviewees also highlighted the benefits and costs of adoption were often unequally distributed \u0026ndash;with disproportionally high costs for women and marginalized community groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCompatibility with adopter needs\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur case study initiatives were largely seen as compatible with adopters\u0026rsquo; current needs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). For example, TURFs in Chile were considered compatible because fishers wanted to access benthic resources, which they were prevented from harvesting between 1989 and 1992 to let stock recover from overfishing. Initiatives generally had elements of flexibility, allowing communities to reflect their priorities within the management plans (e.g. Community Forestry in Nepal, Locally Managed Marine Areas in Madagascar). One participant highlighted:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ean approach that works in one village doesn\u0026rsquo;t necessarily work in the other village. So compatibility is a big question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExtension support and facilitation and presence of international organisations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe spread of most initiatives was highly dependent on extension support and facilitation by support organisations, including governments and national and international organisations, consultancies, and universities. Support organisations played a critical role in implementing the first \u0026lsquo;pilot sites\u0026rsquo; for initiatives, spreading information about the initiative, and supporting other organisations to engage. In many of our case studies, the establishment of the first site(s) associated with most initiatives was largely driven by donor funding and support organisations (e.g. LMMAs in Fiji, Community Forestry in Nepal, Community Conservancies in Namibia). Initial sites were carefully selected where the potential benefits of the initiative were most likely to occur. Interviewees from some initiatives highlighted the importance of the narrative of success for the initiative spread \u0026mdash; communities would hear about the benefits obtained from other communities and want to join in. However, they also highlighted the danger of getting caught up in the narrative of success instead of continuously evaluating and improving the initiative. Interviewees said that the narrative often only represented the first few (carefully engineered) sites rather than the most common outcomes of the initiative when adopted at scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll five initiatives were highly dependent on support to facilitate spread. Potential adopters learned about the initiatives via radio, extension officers, and \u0026ldquo;exposure tours\u0026rdquo; sponsored or facilitated by support organisations. Adopters also depended on support organisations for information about the initiative and for the resources involved in adoption and navigating bureaucratic steps. One interviewee highlighted.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I think the presence of an outside supporting organisation is very, very important. Whether that organisation is local, or international, I don\u0026rsquo;t think that makes a difference. The point is that they are providing support [...]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, while recognizing the important role of support organisations, interviewees highlighted the missed opportunity for the training of local communities and facilitating local leadership and that financial benefits were lost in the transaction:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I think it is very bad because in 20 years of management areas our fishermen know nothing about monitoring samples (...) or using Excel tables. We have lost a precious opportunity to (\u0026hellip;) work strongly with fishers and improve their capabilities. It is so sad for me because I saw a lot of money go by, and I think we could have done a lot better.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;one of the many problems is that the external funding is, is going to NGOs, rather than to communities, because the communities [...] don\u0026rsquo;t have a bank account, for example, so it ends up in the association name or that kind of thing. So that external funding is being filtered through NGOs.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quality and amount of support and facilitation by extension agencies were seen to play a critical role in the benefits adopters can derive from engaging with the initiative. Long-term engagement and coordination across support organisations were seen as critical for spread (e.g. Namibian communal conservancies), whereas competition by support organisations was a barrier. In time, many of the initiatives studied had grown beyond the reach of available support and into areas where the original intended (i.e. economic) benefits are less likely to occur.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding the process of CBNRM adoption and spread can help inform a more deliberate and just societal response to the global biodiversity crises (Clark et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Gurney et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mascia and Mills \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, experts identified social and economic benefits, compatibility with needs, extension support and facilitation, and presence of international organisations as critical in determining the spread of CBNRM across diverse case studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunities engaged with CBNRM initiatives for a wide range of social and economic benefits (also see Jupiter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Ruiz-Mall\u0026eacute;n et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). CBNRM initiatives typically consist of a bundle of activities, principles, processes, and practices (Steenbergen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and motives for adopting initiatives vary among social groups, places, and over time (Ruiz-Mall\u0026eacute;n et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The specific design of initiatives implemented within sites \u0026ndash; and thus their potential costs and benefits \u0026ndash; typically emerged from a negotiation between adopters (e.g. communities) and support organisations. The degree to which these are realised depends on compliance, which in turn depends on local support. These diverse benefits and costs are different between settings and social groups (though benefits tend to accrue among elites; e.g., Saito-Jensen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) and vary in the extent to which they are captured by individuals or dispersed. While incentives often focus on financial benefits, the balance between the various costs and benefits of adoption for a particular community and overall advantage is more likely to determine the likelihood an initiative is to scale (Jagadish et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Lewis-Brown et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). More studies tracking the extent to which these benefits have been realized (e.g. O\u0026rsquo;Garra et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), their distribution and the adopter\u0026rsquo;s satisfaction with the impacts are needed as they will inform both the likelihood of independent adoption and the extent to which initiatives require additional supporting mechanisms like community pressure or regulation (e.g. Davis et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe anticipated benefits of adoption, and the time frames over which these emerged, vary widely within and among initiatives and contexts. Accordingly, a flexible portfolio of management options that communities can choose from to align with local needs are critical for widespread adoption. For example, two communities may join a fisheries focused initiative, but community A may choose to implement gear restrictions in an area to deliver fisheries benefits while community B may choose to implement a no-fishing area because they believe it may attract tourists. Funders and financiers play outsized roles in setting the scaling agenda in conservation (Pienkowski et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); but, whilst well-intentioned, donors are unlikely to understand local needs, contexts and interests (Shackleton et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study also found that support organisations and the presence of international organisations (representing access to resources and technology) were seen as crucial to the adoption and spread of the initiatives. Support organisations played a range of roles considered key for scaling initiaitves: sharing information; mediating the flow of funding between donors and adopters; providing resources and technical capacity to enable adoption; brokering interactions between local actors, and advocating for or developing legislation that decentralized resource use rights (e.g., Jagers et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Moore et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Critically, the ways in which support organisations work and interact with communities will likely influence initiatives\u0026rsquo; adoption, spread, and impacts. Through the engagement process, for example, initiatives will either reinforce or transform existing norms (e.g., around women participation, Lawless et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and influence perceptions of fairness, thus affecting the extent to which projects are sustained (Ostrom \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Negotiations around misaligned support organisations and community goals may erode community motivations for participation (Measham and Lumbasi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, external organisations can face pressures to scale (e.g. to secure continued funding) that may incentivize unethical or coercive scaling approaches, undermining long-term outcomes (Pienkowski et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Our study did not explicitly explore these complexities, and more research is needed to understand how power, fairness, and equity issues influence scaling dynamics and outcomes, especially given that support and international organisations are seen to play such a critical role in scaling. Finally, while biasing pilot studies to locations where the positive impact is most likely may be useful to demonstrate success and learn, it may also mean that the viability of the initiative is likely to decline over time so adoption rates will likely slow, and abandonments rise among later adopters. While examples and narratives of success are useful for encouraging spread, they are counterproductive if they do not encourage learning or misinform future potential adopters.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study also highlighted the need for external organisations to coordinate and collaborate in their efforts to help support community conservation initiatives. If, as suggested by interviewees, the provision of support (e.g. via provision of finance, administrative support or helping to organise workshops) is necessary, the initiative will be inherently limited by the amount and duration of support. Thus, donor and policy expectations of scaling need to be tempered, and the provision of quality long-term extension support needs to be prioritised. Initiatives that provide big and relevant benefits, are simple, build capacity and can be community-led may be more likely to be adopted and sustained in the long-term.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFuture research priorities\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGEM can be a powerful qualitative attribution method for understanding the processes leading to an outcome (Zavaleta Cheek et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The reliability of this method partly depends on capturing and interrogating evidence and perspectives from a breadth of actors (Boissat et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Most participants were NGO representatives, many of whom were involved in implementing the interventions. Consequently, our results may reflect pro-innovation biases (i.e. those championing innovations are less likely to see their weaknesses and costs, Rogers \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), vested interests (i.e. potential strategic reporting to present initiatives favourably) and confirmation bias (interpreting observations in a way that confirms their prior beliefs). Future studies should focus on community perspectives and test the expert opinions on what factors were critical for initiatives to go to scale. Future studies should also investigate the extent to which adopters are engaging in the initiative as a response to a particular incentive or action as opposed to the package offered by the initiative. Language biases could also be tackled with broader language expertise within the research team.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eMitigation of the biodiversity crisis requires large-scale adoption of conservation and restoration initiatives, including CBNRM. We used a qualitative evaluation methodology to identify factors that conservation practitioners see as critical to the adoption and spread of five CBNRM initiatives. Our interviewees perceived that social and economic benefits, compatibility with needs, support and facilitation provided by extension agencies, and the presence of international organisations played a critical role in the spread of CBNRM initiatives across case studies. To meet the scale of the existing biodiversity challenge, we suggest conservation practitioners design flexible initiatives aligned with adopters\u0026rsquo; needs and that deliver a range of economic and social benefits. We also suggest they collaborate and coordinate to scale out effective community-driven initiatives to ensure the best use of limited resources. The urgency of the challenge will require learning by doing and research on initiatives beyond CBNRM.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by ethics committee at Imperial College London; informed consent was given by all individual participants included in this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArmitage D. (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e35\u003c/strong\u003e, 703-715.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBinod B. (2016) Community forest and forest management in Nepal. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Protection\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 79.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoissat L., Thomas‐Walters L., Ver\u0026iacute;ssimo D. (2021) Nature documentaries as catalysts for change: Mapping out the \u0026lsquo;Blackfish Effect\u0026rsquo;. \u003cem\u003ePeople and Nature\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, 1179-1192.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark M., Pienkowski T., Jagadish A.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2024) Forecasting adoption with epidemiological models can enable adaptively scaling out conservation. \u003cem\u003eOne Earth\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, 1820-1832.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis K.J., Kragt M.E., Gelcich S., Burton M., Schilizzi S., Pannell D.J. (2017) Why are Fishers not Enforcing Their Marine User Rights? \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental and Resource Economics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e67\u003c/strong\u003e, 661-681.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDawson N.M., Coolsaet B., Sterling E.J.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2021) The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e26\u003c/strong\u003e, 19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDhungana N., Lee C.-H., Khadka C., Adhikari S., Pudasaini N., Ghimire P. (2024) Evaluating Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) Performance in Managing Community Forests: A Case Study in Central Nepal. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 4471.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGelcich S., Cinner J., Donlan C.J., Tapia-Lewin S., Godoy N., Castilla J.C. (2017) Fishers\u0026apos; perceptions on the Chilean coastal TURF system after two decades: problems, benefits, and emerging needs. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e93\u003c/strong\u003e, 53-67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovan H., Tawake A., Tabunakawai K.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2009) Status and potential of locally-managed marine areas in the South Pacific: meeting nature conservation and sustainable livelihood targets through wide-spread implementation of LMMAs: Study Report. p. 95pp + 95 annexes.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eSPREP/WWF/WorldFish-Reefbase/CRISP.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenhalgh T., Robert G., Bate P., Macfarlane F., Kyriakidou O. (2008) \u003cem\u003eDiffusion of innovations in health service organisations: a systematic literature review\u003c/em\u003e. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Maden, MA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGurney G.G., Darling E.S., Ahmadia G.N.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2021) Biodiversity needs every tool in the box: use OECMs. \u003cstrong\u003e595\u003c/strong\u003e, 646-649.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHartmann A., Linn J.F. (2008) Scaling up: a framework and lessons for development effectiveness from literature and practice. \u003cem\u003eWolfensohn Center for Development Working Paper\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHemming V., Burgman M.A., Hanea A.M., McBride M.F., Wintle B.C. (2018) A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. \u003cem\u003eMethods in Ecology and Evolution\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 169-180.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJagadish A., Freni-Sterrantino A., He Y.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2024) Scaling Indigenous-led natural resource management. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e84\u003c/strong\u003e, 102799.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJagers S.C., Harring N., L\u0026ouml;fgren \u0026Aring;.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2020) On the preconditions for large-scale collective action. \u003cem\u003eAmbio\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e, 1282-1296.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJupiter S.D., Cohen P.J., Weeks R., Tawake A., Govan H. (2014) Locally-managed marine areas: multiple objectives and diverse strategies. \u003cem\u003ePacific Conservation Biology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e, 165-179.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLawless S., Song A.M., Cohen P.J., Morrison T.H. (2020) Rights, equity and justice: A diagnostic for social meta-norm diffusion in environmental governance. \u003cem\u003eEarth System Governance\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 100052.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis‐Brown E., Beatty H., Davis K.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2021) The importance of future generations and conflict management in conservation. \u003cem\u003eConservation Science and Practice\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, e488.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMahajan S.L., Jagadish A., Glew L.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2021) A theory‐based framework for understanding the establishment, persistence, and diffusion of community‐based conservation. \u003cem\u003eConservation Science and Practice\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, e299.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMascia M.B., Mills M. (2018) When conservation goes viral: The diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and practices. \u003cem\u003eConservation Letters\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, e12442.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeasham T.G., Lumbasi J.A. (2013) Success factors for community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): Lessons from Kenya and Australia. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e52\u003c/strong\u003e, 649-659.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMEFT/NASCO. (2019) The state of community conservation in Namibia. Annual Report 2019: a review of communal conservancies, community forestry and other CBNRM initiatives.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMIHARI. (2020) Guide de R\u0026eacute;f\u0026eacute;rence Des Aires Marines G\u0026eacute;r\u0026eacute;es Localment (LMMA) \u0026agrave; Madagascar. Antananarivo, Madagascar.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMIHARI. (2023) Mihari Gestion Locale des Resources Marines - Reseau Madagascar.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoore M.-L., Riddell D., Vocisano D. (2015) Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep: strategies of non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Corporate Citizenship\u003c/em\u003e, 67-84.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewing H., Eagle C., Puri R.K., Watson C. (2011) \u003cem\u003eConducting research in conservation\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge Oxfordshire.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Garra T., Mangubhai S., Jagadish A.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2023) National-level evaluation of a community-based marine management initiative. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 908-918.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOstrom E. (1990) \u003cem\u003eGoverning the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge university press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalinkas L.A., Horwitz S.M., Green C.A., Wisdom J.P., Duan N., Hoagwood K. (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. \u003cem\u003eAdministration and policy in mental health and mental health services research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 533-544.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePannell D.J., Marshall G.R., Barr N., Curtis A., Vanclay F., Wilkinson R. (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. \u003cem\u003eAustralian journal of experimental agriculture\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e46\u003c/strong\u003e, 1407-1424.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePienkowski T., Jagadish A., Battista W.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e (2024) Five lessons to avoid failing at scaling in conservation. \u003cem\u003eNature Ecology and Evolution\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 1804\u0026ndash;1814.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRogers E.M. (2003) \u003cem\u003eDiffusion of Innovations\u003c/em\u003e. Free Press, New York.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomero‐de‐Diego C., Dean A., Jagadish A., Witt B., Mascia M.B., Mills M. (2021) Drivers of adoption and spread of wildlife management initiatives in Mexico. \u003cem\u003eConservation Science and Practice\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, e438.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuiz-Mall\u0026eacute;n I., Schunko C., Corbera E., R\u0026ouml;s M., Reyes-Garc\u0026iacute;a V. (2015) Meanings, drivers, and motivations for community-based conservation in Latin America. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaito-Jensen M., Nathan I., Treue T. (2010) Beyond elite capture? Community-based natural resource management and power in Mohammed Nagar village, Andhra Pradesh, India. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Conservation\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e, 327-335.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalerno J., Romulo C., Galvin K.A., Brooks J., Mupeta‐Muyamwa P., Glew L. (2021) Adaptation and evolution of institutions and governance in community‐based conservation. \u003cem\u003eConservation Science and Practice\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, e355.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScriven M. (2008) A summative evaluation of RCT methodology: An alternative approach to causal research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of multidisciplinary evaluation\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, 11-24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShackleton S., Campbell B., Wollenberg E., Edmunds D. (2002) Devolution and community-based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit. \u003cem\u003eNatural resource perspectives\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e76\u003c/strong\u003e, 1-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteenbergen D.J., Song A.M., Andrew N. (2022) A theory of scaling for community-based fisheries management. \u003cem\u003eAmbio\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e51\u003c/strong\u003e, 666-677.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStephanson S.L., Mascia M.B. (2014) Putting people on the map through an approach that integrates social data in conservation planning. \u003cem\u003eConservation biology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e, 1236-1248.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalker J.L. (1969) The diffusion of innovations among the American states. \u003cem\u003eAmerican political science review\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e63\u003c/strong\u003e, 880-899.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWejnert B. (2002) Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. \u003cem\u003eAnnual review of sociology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e, 297-326.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhite H., Phillips D. (2012) Addressing attribution of cause and effect in small n impact evaluations: towards an integrated framework. in N.D.I.I.f.I. Evaluation editor.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhite M.D., Marsh E.E. (2006) Content analysis: A flexible methodology. \u003cem\u003eLibrary trends\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e55\u003c/strong\u003e, 22-45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZavaleta Cheek J., Eklund J., Merten N., Brooks J., Miller D.C. (2023) A guide to qualitative attribution methods for evaluation in conservation. \u003cem\u003eConservation Biology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e, e14071.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBackground information on case studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeography\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNepal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNamibia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFiji\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMadagascar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eName of the initiative\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTerritorial Use Rights in fisheries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity Forestry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunal Conservancies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocally Managed Marine Areas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocally Managed Marine Areas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResources being managed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFisheries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForestry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWildlife\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFisheries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFisheries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGoals/ objectives\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo sustainably manage and use the benthic resources in marine areas (Gelcich et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo meet the subsistence needs of local people and protect the forest (Binod \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo conserve and protect the environment and sustainably use natural resources (MEFT/NASCO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo manage and sustainably use marine resources (Govan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo promote the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources, managed or co-managed by local communities (MIHARI \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eYear initiated\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1991\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1987\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1998\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNumber of adopters\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e450 active TURFs (Gelcich et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23,682 Community Forest Groups (Dhungana et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86 conservancies (MEFT/NASCO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e352 villages (O\u0026rsquo;Garra et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e178 Locally Managed Marine Areas (MIHARI \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), 25 partner NGOs (MIHARI \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNumber of interviewees\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiffusion of Innovation theory factors included in the interviews\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Credit\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(modified from Mahajan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpected association with adoption\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDefinition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelative economic benefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNet economic benefit as perceived by the adopter - e.g. including consideration of costs and benefits over the long-term\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePannell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e); Rogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelative social benefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial benefits as perceived by the adopter. Examples include food security, health security, and tenure security\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelative gain of social prestige\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGain in social prestige and political empowerment as a result of adoption of the innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelative environmental benefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcological benefits as perceived by the adopter, includes improvements to the resource base and improved environmental conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePannell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived risks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree of uncertainty around adoption outcomes or unintended consequences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePannell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitial costs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelate to monetary and non direct or indirect costs, or risks associated with the adoption of an innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), Rogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmediacy of reward\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRealizing the benefits of innovation adoption soon after adoption\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompatibility with values and beliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn innovation that is compatible with deeply embedded cultural values and beliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompatibility with previously introduced ideas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious experience with adopted ideas provide a standard against which an innovation can be interpreted, thus decreasing uncertainty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompatibility with needs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree to which an innovation is perceived as meeting the needs of the adopters\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompatibility with current practices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree to which an innovation is compatible with the current practices followed by the adopter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEase of understanding and use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe degree to which the innovation is perceived as relatively easy to understand and use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbility to partially implement practice before full adoption\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe degree to which the practice may be experimented on a partial basis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), Pannell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbility to reject adoption and go back to status quo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe greater the degree to which the conservation action can be abandoned and the adopter can go back to a prior status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVisibility of practice and results\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe degree to which the results of the innovation are observable by others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlexibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe degree to which the adopters can tailor the conservation action to their needs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Greenhalgh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e); Pannell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic well-being\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe resources people use to meet basic consumption and material needs and access other sources of well being\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structures, systems, and practices - formal and informal - used to transfer knowledge and skills in a society\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Stephanson and Mascia \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpenness to new ideas and practices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe degree to which units within a system compete for resources, funds, ties to external agents, status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), Rogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFamiliarity with innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe familiarity associated with the innovation relates to how radical it is\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), Wejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentralised decision-making\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree to which power and control in a system are concentrated in the hands of a relatively few individuals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplexity (adequate skills, knowledge, and expertise)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree to which an organisation\u0026rsquo;s members possess relatively high level of knowledge and expertise, usually measured by the members\u0026rsquo; range of occupational specialities and degree of professionalism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormalization (formal rules and procedures in place)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree to which the adopter emphasizes its members\u0026rsquo; following the rules and procedures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterconnectedness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe degree to which the potential adopters interpersonal and organisational networks (including social density) can increase communication about the innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e); (Walker \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSize\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSize of the organisation making the decision to adopt or reject - number of people involved, budget, size of area served\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical empowerment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeople\u0026rsquo;s ability to participate in the decision-making processes that effect their lives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive if compatible\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe degree to which the ecological infrastructures such as climate, weather, soil, landscape characteristics influence adoption\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProximity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe degree to which the geographical setting (e.g. weather) or proximity will influence the frequency of communication and interaction between actors or potential adopters and the innovation itself\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditionalism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssociated with social inertia in adopting new practices and ideas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarity amongst population\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive if innovation already exists in the system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edegree of structural equivalence between transmitters and potential adopters\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearning processes/ Socialization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMobilization of available societal talents of entrepreneurship, perseverance, determination, marketing skills that influence adoption through social learning processes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical conditions - national policies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive if compatible\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational and local policies which support the adoption and implementation of the innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical conditions - bureaucracies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical conditions - political character\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive if compatible\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExistence of political freedoms and laws, trust in government\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtension support - support and facilitation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePresence of local organisations and extension support to communicate about and facilitate implementation of new ideas and practices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePannell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtension support - presence of local champions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA charismatic individual who throws her or his weight behind an innovation, thus overcoming indifference or resistance that the new idea may provoke in an organisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRogers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutionalization (presence of targets, rules and incentives to promote widespread adoption)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe spread of rule-like behavioural models that are supported by common recipes and an implicit structure of incentives for the adoption of approved forms of practices, programs, or policies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal Technology (Presence of international NGOs and corporations)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal adoption of technological innovations, including agricultural and industrial practices, that is facilitated by the growth of multinational organisations, as well as by the generally low threshold of diffusion of technological innovations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorld connectedness (Presence of communication systems like internet and access to social media)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModern communication systems or media effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWejnert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Supplementary Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 1 is not available with this version\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Adoption, Community-based conservation, Scaling, Diffusion of Innovation theory, General Elimination Methodology, Conservation decision-making, Nature-based solutions, Conservation policy, Innovation, CBNRM","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575146/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575146/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCommunity-based natural resource management is a common strategy for conserving biodiversity, but little is known about how such initiatives can scale appropriately and widely. We interviewed 80 experts across 5 widely adopted community-based initiatives (in Chile, Nepal, Namibia, Madagascar and Fiji) to understand their perspectives on the drivers of adoption and spread. We used General Elimination Methodology and Diffusion of Innovation theory to identify and rule out possible explanations. Factors consistently considered influential were economic and social benefits; compatibility with needs; support and facilitation by extension agencies; and the presence of international organisations. Initiatives aiming to scale should be designed to be flexible and aligned with adopters\u0026rsquo; needs and external organisations should coordinate resources for scaling out. Dependence on external support underscores the need for quality assistance, good practices by external actors, and understanding power relations and fairness, as well as the need to temper donor and policy expectations of scaling beyond supported and appropriate sites.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Scaling out community conservation initiatives: experts identify economic and social benefits, compatibility with needs and external support as key","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-12-11 15:39:36","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575146/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"18c36ba0-b3cf-47aa-bed2-1ae8c45917b9","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 11th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":41114417,"name":"Conservation Biology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-12-11T15:39:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-12-11 15:39:36","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5575146","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5575146","identity":"rs-5575146","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"ehx78VzkSd0WSzXnipQa-","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}