We found that all conservation actions have potential to leverage systemic transformative change. All leverage points were addressed by several actions. At the highest level of organization, the Action classification is in line with Meadows’ leverage points (Table 1): A. Target Restoration / Stress Reduction Actions lead to changes in conservation targets without first reducing threats or creating enabling conditions and are thus expected to operate at shallow leverage points, while B. Behavioral Change / Threat Reduction Actions and C. Enabling Condition Actions are aimed at deeper leverage points. There is, however, much variation among actions within each class, described in more detail below.
[Table 1]
1. Land/water management
Site/Area stewardship (1.1) are small-scale actions with a physical character: enhancing viability or mitigating stress implies changing a quantity (LP12). Whether they affect buffers (LP11) depends on how ambitious goals are set for the actions. Ideally, conservation actions should always aim at adequate buffers rather than minimum indispensable quantities, while in practice the ongoing population declines show that this often fails. Some actions may affect local spatial structure of habitat, such as fencing, or population structure through genetic manipulation (LP10).
Ecosystem and Natural Process (Re)Creation (1.2) instead affects broader entities and feedbacks by definition. These actions eventually influence the amount of habitat, or size of population (LP12), even though through affecting a process. Process (re)creation also should consider stocks and flows, how they are stabilized (LP11) and structures (LP10). E.g., a functioning hydrological system is all about flows and buffering. Structure is critical for (re)creating processes: From structural components such as retention trees, to overall age structure of a forest, or spatial connectivity of habitat. Actively restoring instead of letting nature take its course reduces delays in recovery, e.g. infilling ditches in drained peatlands instead of just stopping their maintenance (LP9). Restoration can target and bring back natural regulatory ecosystem functions (LP8) for example in the food web, for flood control, or for regulating microclimatic conditions. Restoration activities can themselves have a regulatory role when addressing ongoing stresses, for example, mowing of wet grasslands changes vegetation composition and growth rate, attracting more water birds, thus keeping the amount of their habitat at an acceptable (safe) level (Angelstam et al. 2022, LP8). They may also provide gains around driving positive feedback loops (LP7) if the action effectively addresses e.g. eutrophication, spread of invasives, habitat fragmentation or other processes that have a self-reinforcing negative impact on biodiversity (Davila et al. 2021), or by enabling a self-reinforcing process that increases biodiversity.
2. Species management
Species Stewardship (2.1) actions aim to keep species or populations viable without considering broader ecosystem impacts, targeting numbers and parameters (LP12). This is often done by influencing further numbers and parameters (LP12), such as increasing availability of resources in different ways, reducing the amounts of nutrients, reducing the prevalence of a disease by vaccinating individuals, and so forth. Whether these actions amount to buffering or stabilizing effects, depends on their level of ambition. "Maintaining more than the minimum breeding population of an endangered species" was one of Meadows' original examples of LP11. Local scale actions can impact Structure of material stock and flows (LP10) especially for smaller organisms, but also more generally when the actions are well coordinated and planned, for example population age structure (an original example by Meadows, although referring to human populations), metapopulation dynamics and movement/migration patterns. Extinction tends to happen with a delay with respect to its causes, and species stewardship actions can further prolong this delay (LP9) giving time for more fundamental, deeper leverage changes to take place. They can also boost population growth and colonization to new sites that otherwise might happen slowly (or not at all), shortening the natural delay in species recovery after a stressor. For instance, providing nest boxes for birds in a managed forest until the forest matures enough to become suitable for cavity-nesters, would reduce the delay in species (and ecosystem) recovery.
When Species Re-Introduction & Translocation (2.2) is done to save the species itself, leverage remains relatively low, affecting the species' own (local) population size or distribution (LP12). Again, if it is done with ambitious enough goals, so that the resulting population size is large enough to be resilient against unexpected events, it will affect LP11. As translocations must be planned per specific locations and individuals, it is more likely to influence structure positively: both spatial as well as population structure. For example, translocations can be planned to improve genetic diversity of a population, or to a location that connects isolated populations (LP10), in which case a focused effort can lead to a gain around a driving positive feedback loop (LP7) through "genetic rescue", provided that population genetics of both the target population and translocated individuals are known. Such strategic translocations can be a challenging endeavor for their data requirements and difficult practical implementation, but when successful, they have a strong gain around this driving positive feedback loop, however, limited to the scale of the targeted species itself. Translocations have the potential to reduce delays with respect to natural dispersal (LP9), even though in reality due to high costs and information requirements, resources may be concentrated on species that have poor or nonexistent chances of natural dispersal to the targeted location.
Ex-situ Conservation (2.3) clearly influences species specific numbers, increasing the number of extant individuals and their reproductive rates (LP12). Maintaining viable populations of species in captivity, as well as gene banking, represent a type of buffering approach by definition (LP11). Maintenance of genetic diversity directly affects the genetic structure of stocks, and the carefully regulated breeding in zoos also affects population age/sex structure (LP10). Ex-situ conservation can also prolong the delay before extinction (LP9).
3. Awareness Raising
The primary channel of leverage for Outreach & Communications (3.1) is self-evidently through The structure of information flows (LP6). Outreach methods vary greatly in their transformative potential, from shallower leverage of simple newspaper articles to the deeper leverage of immersive and experiential approaches. Outreach may or may not be effective, but when it successfully leads to behavior change, it affects several leverage points. For example, shifting diets toward plant-based protein would affect parameters (LP10-12), but also enable reforming the structure and rules of the entire food system (LP4-5). Strengthening material links with nature locally would shorten Feedbacks and Delays (LP8, LP9) by reducing the externalization of environmental impacts of consumer choices (Abson et al. 2017; Carrasco et al. 2017). Reporting on conservation success stories that have brought benefits to the local community can encourage more active participation, forming a reinforcing feedback loop (LP7) around the conservation action itself (Angelstam et al. 2022). Successful outreach campaigns can also empower and increase people's sense of agency (Linnér & Wibeck 2021; Wamsler et al. 2022) affecting the power to change system structure (LP4). Outreach that reinforces nature connectedness also has the potential to influence the system paradigm (LP2, Abson et al 2017) and system goals (LP3), leading to more sustainable behaviors and increased nature contact, reinforcing its own impact (LP7, Barragan-Jason et al. 2022). Well-designed outreach through transdisciplinary, participatory approaches, could even enlighten the target audience regarding co-existence and value of worldviews beyond their own, inducing transcending paradigms ((LP1, Linnér & Wibeck 2021). Even though lobbying decision makers is considered under Legal & policy frameworks (7), they too are susceptible to general public outreach efforts, which can influence the broader political agenda. Increased awareness can influence rules of the system (LP5), for example, the Red List assessments have influenced legislation in Finland (Salomaa & Arponen, forthcoming), or even catalyze system structure change (LP4). Similarly, increased awareness among decision makers may also influence system goals (LP3), such as the SDGs.
Protests and civil disobedience (3.2) can influence Parameters (LP10-12). Classical examples are camp-outs of activists that have stopped logging or other destruction of the environment, resulting even in establishment of protected areas. (Note that boycott is considered an economic incentive in the Action classification). Protests and civil disobedience have the potential to alter rules (LP5) and speed up decision making and implementation of conservation actions that are often delayed by tortuous legal and administrative paths (LP9). There can be gains around both types of feedback loops if protesting successfully stops or prevents a self-reinforcing threat or driver of biodiversity loss (LP7) or maintains them at a sustainable level (LP8). Protest and civil disobedience can be effective in bringing conservation issues into public awareness (LP6) by drawing media attention. In addition, investigative journalism and naming & shaming campaigns can uncover hidden information and increase accountability (LP6). Civil disobedience has also been recognized to increase people’s capacity to self-organize (LP4, Priebe et al. 2022). Policy dismantling and even purposeful destabilization of institutions has been cited as a powerful, albeit risky lever (Abson et al. 2017), possibly extending the impact of activism to goals and paradigms (LP2, LP3).
4. Law Enforcement & Prosecution
Detection & Arrest (4.1) have immediate effects on parameters (LP10-12), when for example controlling poaching directly influences population sizes or surveillance for violations of environmental laws affect parameters regarding pollution rates, erosion, etc. Poaching and trafficking can be biased toward mature (male) individuals affecting population structure. Some criminal activities are difficult to control, but when successful, the deterrent effect would act as a negative, controlling loop (LP8). Sad examples of this were seen when during the Covid pandemic patrolling in protected areas ceased and illegal activities such as burning and poaching increased, however, this was a synergistic effect with increased poverty (Anagnostou et al. 2021; Eklund et al. 2022). Indeed, the effectiveness of deterrence will largely depend on case-specific social and economic factors, for example, livelihoods depending on exploitation will weaken it (Moreto & Gau 2017). Demand for illegal wildlife products is flexible, prices going up with reduced supply, therefore affecting it would address a perverse incentive (LP7). Detection & Arrest are also a part of the process of exposing illegal activities (LP6).
Criminal Prosecution & Conviction (4.2) also have one kind of deterrent function (LP8, LP7). Collecting evidence and investigating illegal activities form new flows of information, as does exposing them to the public (LP6). Although the power of courts varies from country to country, precedents can sometimes determine new rules, or courts can ask for preliminary rulings from a superior (national or international) court, which become binding (LP5).
Non-Criminal Legal Action (4.3) contains judicial reviews and such that act as regulating loops, keeping the impacts of harmful activities within acceptable boundaries (LP8). Non-criminal legal actions can be important in generating new channels of information flow and for increasing accountability for biodiversity loss (LP6). As above, Non-Criminal Legal Action can affect Rules through precedents or preliminary rulings (LP5). Class actions are classically considered to be strongly empowering for the class members (Erichson 2003), and indeed, they have a character similar to public movements, civil disobedience and protest, where people assume collective power which may lead even to changing system structure (LP4).
5. Livelihood, Economic & Moral Incentives
Linked enterprises and alternative livelihoods (5.1) initiatives should have direct Parameter impacts on targeted biodiversity (LP12), and depending on their arrangement, possibly also on Buffers (LP11). They will impact entrepreneurship and labor market structure (LP10). Linked livelihoods that directly depend on the maintenance of natural resources have a strong regulating character regarding biodiversity (LP8) but a self-reinforcing impact through increased revenue, societal interest and support for the livelihood is also possible (LP7, Angelstam et al. 2022). Provision of alternative livelihoods could potentially end destructive activities/industries altogether (LP7), although they are more likely to reduce and regulate the impacts. Providing a more diverse set of alternatives for livelihoods could give room for the system structure to self-organize (LP4).
Adopting Better products and management practices (5.2) influences parameters (LP10-12). Seal-friendly fishing gear, greening of supply chains of corporations, or swapping for low water-use crops do not aim at any deeper change in the society, just a less damaging way of proceeding with business-as-usual.
Financial incentives, when implemented within existing structures, affect mainly parameters (Abson et al. 2017). Market-Based Incentives (5.3) contain a highly diverse set of actions from the perspective of leverage. They can directly hit consumption parameters (LP12, depending on design also and LP10 and LP11), and affect market structure (LP10), but also feedback mechanisms are commonly involved. Environmental markets (carbon markets, ecological compensation schemes) would provide controlling feedback loops through internalizing costs (LP8, Meadows 1999), while well targeted and substantial enough green financing has the potential to arrest escalating biodiversity loss processes or threats (funding for public health in Carey & Crammond 2015, LP7). Environmental markets represent new rules, as do certification schemes at a different level (LP5).
Direct Economic Incentives (5.4) were among the original examples of LP12 in Meadows' work, but depending on how they are designed, they can also affect buffers (LP11) and they inevitably affect structure of stocks and flows (LP10) – such as market structure distortions in favor of biodiversity friendly products. Direct economic incentive schemes can provide regulating feedback loops, provided they are well targeted and responsive to current needs (LP8). An interesting reinforcing loop structure was reported by Angelstam et al. (2022), where incentives increased land owners willingness to take part in wetland management, which helped develop nature tourism and bring prosperity to the area, which in turn triggered more incentives from the municipality (LP7). Some schemes, such as the EU's Agri-environment schemes or payments for voluntary conservation, have reshaped The rules of the system (LP5), although such rules are weaker than laws and punishments (Meadows 1999).
There are some non-monetary values (5.5) that can be quantified, such as health benefits (Aerts et al. 2018), thus having parameter impacts (LP10-12), but because the purpose of this action by definition is to use “intangible and moral values to change behaviors and attitudes”, we consider their importance for transformative change to arise primarily from providing alternative system goals and paradigms (LP2-3).
6. Conservation Designation & Planning
Protected area designation and/or acquisition (6.1) focuses mainly on parameters (Abson et al. 2017). Constants, parameters and numbers (LP12) are affected by increasing the amount of area protected (Meadows 1999). Area targets should be adequate to buffer against fluctuations (LP11) and spatial structure of the protected area network should be taken into account (LP10) or otherwise biodiversity will eventually decrease within them (LP9). Formal protection of sites can address self-reinforcing threats, such as habitat fragmentation (LP7), as well as mitigate and regulate ongoing stressors (LP8). This category covers the establishment of protected areas legally (LP5).
Easements & Resource Rights (6.2) as well as Land use zoning and designation (6.3) have in principle all the same aspects as PAs but with lesser ecological impact because they are addressing just some aspect of the location, providing a lower degree of protection than IUCN protected area categories I-IV (LP7-12, LP5).
Conservation planning (6.4) deals with designing and planning actions, but not with their implementation, therefore its direct impact manifests at The structure of information flows (LP6) independently of how/whether the information will flow into practice. When used in combination with another action, it increases their quality of implementation and thus leverage.
Site Infrastructure (6.5) investments mainly belong to Constants, parameters and numbers (LP12), while LP10-11 can be involved depending on details of implementation.
7. Legal & Policy Frameworks
Laws, Regulations & Codes (7.1) as well as Policies & Guidelines (7.2) can have highly variable paths of influence, depending on what issues they address. Laws, regulations, and codes are more binding than policies and guidelines. A direct impact on parameters (LP10-12) is possible, for example through legal protection of species that protects them from exploitation, or through timber harvest quotas (Meadows 1999), here the bindingness makes parameter-level transformative potential of laws stronger than that of policies. Deterrence is usually considered in the context of getting caught and convicted (4.1–4.2), but for the regular law-abiding citizens knowing that something is illegal or strongly advised against may be enough to prevent doing it (LP8). These categories (7.1, 7.2) include educating or lobbying lawmakers and policymakers, affecting the Structure of Information flows (LP6). Self-evidently these categories affect Rules (LP5). Transformative potential of laws on LP6 and LP5 is stronger than that of policies. New legislation (7.1) and new policies (7.2) can also enable system structure change (LP4), for example, a requirement for ecological compensation could generate a whole new ensemble of actors and markets with their feedback mechanisms, which previously did not exist.
8. Research & Monitoring
Basic Research and Status Monitoring (8.1) inevitably affect the structure of information flows (LP6). Meadows list monitoring systems as an example of a controlling feedback loop (LP8). Scientific knowledge can contribute to behavior change, but those impacts are addressed in more detail under Public outreach. In addition to LP6, Evaluation, Effectiveness Measures and Learning (8.2) about the effectiveness of conservation work forms a strong regulating feedback loop to practice (LP8, Meadows: monitoring systems) (e.g. adaptive management, double-loop learning).
9. Education & Training
Formal Education (9.1), in the Action classification referring to specialized education on conservation, addresses information flows (LP6). Education can provide empowerment and promote agency, which enables system structure change (LP4, Linnér & Wibeck 2021; Sidiropoulos 2022). Conservation education that teaches about different alternative philosophical perspectives can impact even paradigms (LP2) or enable transcending them (LP1) (Moon & Blackman 2014). Similarly, Training & Individual Capacity Development (9.2) addresses information flows (LP6). Both can include capacity building which affect the power to change system structure (LP4) and even some cases paradigms and transcending them (LP2 and LP1).
10. Institutional Development
Internal Organizational Management & Administration (10.1) handles both human and material resources for conservation organizations (LP10-12), and all actions for Financing Conservation (10.4) influence parameters regarding money (LP10-12). Regarding 10.1 and 10.4. the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of financial buffers (LP11) as well as diversification of funding structure for protected areas (LP10). Many were suddenly in deep trouble as tourism revenues seized and there were no buffers or alternative funding sources (Waithaka et al. 2021). Funding structure diversification may also release the organization from a self-reinforcing loop where they feel pressure to enact the goals of the funder (LP7, Berl et al. 2022). These issues are not implicitly addressed by any fundraising action, but rather, they should be in a key role when planning for overall financing (10.1). Financing (10.1. and 10.4) can also be seen as a regulatory loop against biodiversity loss (LP8) and if investments are targeted effectively and proactively, they may also reinforce or create new positive feedback loops (LP7, Carey & Crammond 2015 on funding for public health).
External Organizational Development & Support (10.2) will strengthen organizations ensuring continuity in the regulatory role they have (LP8). External support to an organization can include for example consulting services, forming a new channel of information flow (LP6). Creation of environmental organizations changes system structure (LP4)
The impact of Alliance and Partnership Development (10.3) depends largely on the context and who is involved and what is done in the partnership, but all kinds of collaborations would be expected to influence the structure of information flows (LP6), and especially so when the collaboration is about knowledge creation, but impact on system structure is also possible (LP4, Burgos-Ayala et al. 2020).