https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9840-3806
Figures
Abstract
Localized environmental actions, often part of community efforts targeting human well-being or sustainability, are gaining recognition as important components of global conservation strategies, complementing traditional large-scale mitigation efforts aimed at reducing anthropogenic environmental impacts. This synthesis explores how local projects, such as community gardens, small-scale renewable energy projects, and regional conservation efforts, address specific sustainability challenges and contribute to environmental conservation. Focusing on three core areas; feasibility and accessibility, trackability and measurability, and scalability and integration, the paper examines what role these factors play in planning and execution of localized environmental actions in both local and broader environmental contexts. By analyzing 17 different programs across 40 countries, the paper highlights the key challenges and pathways for adapting localized environmental actions, emphasizing the need for clear outcomes, robust tracking mechanisms, and scalable approaches. Pathways for improving the adoption and integration the smaller projects and efforts into larger conservation frameworks are also discussed. This synthesis presents 10 core points that should serve as the foundation for a generalizable framework to advance small-scale environmental actions. These actions, when aligned with larger conservation goals and responsive to local and community needs, demonstrate the potential for achieving significant, sustainable environmental outcomes.
Author summary
In this study, I explore how small-scale environmental actions, like community gardens and local renewable energy projects, can support global sustainability goals. Drawing on 17 programs from 40 countries, I examine what makes these local efforts successful. Three main factors stand out: they must be accessible and feasible for communities, have clear and measurable outcomes, and be scalable so they can connect with broader conservation strategies. For real impact, these initiatives need solid tracking systems and must be designed to grow beyond their original context. I propose ten guiding principles to help structure a framework that supports these efforts. By aligning local action with larger environmental goals and responding to community needs, I argue that small initiatives, when well-managed, can lead to meaningful and lasting environmental change. This work highlights both the challenges and opportunities in scaling up local solutions to meet global needs.
Citation: Theis S (2025) From local to global: Leveraging localized environmental actions for scalable sustainability effects. PLOS Sustain Transform 4(7): e0000185. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000185
Editor: Prashant Sharma, Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, INDIA
Received: September 16, 2024; Accepted: June 29, 2025; Published: July 16, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Sebastian Theis. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data used is fully available through the supplemental material.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
Reducing human environmental impacts and ecological footprints [1,2], while promoting sustainability [3,4] have become urgent global priorities in the face of accelerating ecological degradation [5–7]. Biodiversity loss [8], climate change [9], land-use transformation [10], and pollution [11] are among the many interconnected challenges driven by human activities that threaten the long-term resilience of ecosystems and the well-being of societies. Addressing these issues requires a wide range of responses that operate across scales from international agreements to national policies [4] and local initiatives [12] that collectively aim to reduce harm, restore degraded environments, and foster more sustainable practices of interaction with the natural world [13–15].
Among the tools available, mitigation-oriented strategies have long played a central role in formal environmental management [16]. These include efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [17,18], limit habitat destruction [19], and improve the efficiency and sustainability of resource use [20]. In situations where environmental impacts cannot be entirely avoided, compensatory measures have also been used to offset damages by investing in equivalent ecological benefits elsewhere and more recently exceeding approved impacts to provide to meet additionality requirements [19,21–23]. While these policy-driven approaches remain important [24], they represent just one part of a broader and evolving landscape of environmental action [12,14,25–27]. Previous reviews have examined the increasing role of digital technologies [28] and behavior-focused strategies [29] in advancing sustainability goals.
In response to the scale and urgency of human-driven environmental change, some scholars have proposed alternative, hopeful approaches such as the “seeds of a good Anthropocene” that highlight diverse, values-based local initiatives as entry points for transformative change [30–32]. In recent years, there has been a steady shift towards more decentralized and community-driven environmental initiatives and nature based solutions [15,33,34]. This shift is exemplified by local environmental and sustainability efforts as well as small-scale offsets (from hereon referred to as Local Environmental Action(s) – LEA(s)) [33,35,36]. LEAs refer to small-scale, often community-led or individually initiated efforts aimed at promoting sustainability, improving local environmental conditions, or reducing human ecological footprints [35,37,38]. Unlike traditional top-down or strictly policy-mandated approaches, LEAs often encompass a diverse range of practices, including community gardens [27], local conservation projects [39], behavioral shifts [29], and small-scale renewable energy initiatives [40,41] that, when aggregated, have the potential to contribute meaningfully to broader environmental goals.
The fundamental idea is that when many individuals and communities engage in these small-scale efforts, their combined effects can lead to significant environmental improvements (Fig 1). For example, Plastic Bank incentivizes individuals in Haiti to collect ocean-bound plastic waste in exchange for goods or cash, removing over 1 million pounds of plastic within a year. Its success led to global expansion, with over 10 billion plastic bottles collected across multiple countries, significantly reducing ocean pollution and supporting local economies (Fig 1) [42–45].
(Top) A community garden program in Detroit, fostering food security, community cohesion, and urban revitalization. (Bottom) The Plastic Bank initiative in Haiti incentivizes plastic waste collection, scaling globally to remove over 10 billion bottles and support local economies [43–45,101,152,153]. Symbols attribution uxwing.com.
The growing interest in LEAs reflects a broader recognition of the potential for grassroots and decentralized approaches to complement traditional, large-scale mitigation strategies [46,47]. By enabling individuals and local communities to take an active role in environmental conservation, LEAs empower more people to contribute to sustainability goals [33,48]. This shift also highlights the importance of aggregating small actions to achieve larger environmental objectives [49].
The focus on LEAs aligns with a broader movement towards sustainability that values the contributions of various scales of action [50,51]. It underscores the idea that meaningful conservation can occur at multiple levels, from individual behavior changes to community-driven projects [33,46]. By harnessing the collective power of small-scale actions, LEAs offer a potentially promising avenue for enhancing overall environmental stewardship and achieving more comprehensive conservation outcomes, especially in areas not covered by traditional offsets. Hence the primary aims of this paper are to:
- Explore the role of LEAs: Using current case studies to investigate how LEAs contribute to environmental conservation and sustainability challenges.
- Challenges and integration: Synthesize pathways and challenges associated with implementing LEAs, focusing on three core areas: feasibility and accessibility, trackability and measurability, and scalability and integration. These factors are essential for ensuring that LEAs can be successfully adopted and scaled, contributing to both local conservation efforts and larger environmental goals.
2. Methods
2.1 Data collection and qualitative synthesis
I followed an adapted version of the thematic synthesis approach by Thomas and Harden (2008), which is commonly used in qualitative research to systematically extract and interpret findings across multiple sources [52]. This involved five main steps: (1) gathering relevant qualitative sources based on predefined search criteria; (2) extracting key information, with a focus on descriptive elements such as program type, verification mechanism, and mitigation strategy; (3) coding and categorizing the extracted data into descriptive themes or concepts, consistent with Thomas and Harden’s method of thematic grouping; (4) synthesizing the findings across cases to identify recurring patterns, mechanisms, and contrasts; and (5) interpreting these synthesized themes to draw conclusions and offer recommendations based on the research objectives. This approach allows for a structured yet flexible analysis of context-dependent issues where numerical data alone may not capture critical social and institutional dimensions [52,53].
I synthesized information from 17 programs, identified using greylitSearcher [53]. GreylitSearcher allows users to input specific keywords (S1 Table), which are then used to scan various grey literature repositories. In this study, Google was chosen for its broad coverage, to retrieve non-peer-reviewed documents, reports, and other relevant grey literature sources related to the search query. I based my synthesis on the first 200 search results retrieved from this process to explore the potential and application of LEAs across different contexts. Initial Inclusion criteria required that LEAs: (1) operate at a local/community scale; (2) explicitly address environmental sustainability or footprint reduction; and (3) include sufficient publicly available documentation for consistent qualitative synthesis [52].
2.2 Extracting and synthesis of information
The information collected from the identified programs was categorized into four main types. Project location: The geographical context of each project was identified to understand how local or global environmental goals are addressed. Verification mechanism: I examined how these programs ensure credibility and transparency by utilizing established verification systems or standards. Scaling mechanism: The scalability of the programs was explored, focusing on how they could be replicated or expanded to achieve broader environmental impact. Project type: I classified the offset mechanisms used in each project (e.g., nature-based solutions) to assess the diversity and scope of LEAs.
Project information was used to assign common offset mechanisms, which were broadly categorized based on the literature. Nature-based solutions: These involve leveraging natural processes such as reforestation or wetland restoration to sequester carbon or restore ecosystems [18]. Technology-based projects: This category focuses on the use of technological innovations, like energy-efficient appliances or renewable energy systems, to reduce environmental footprints [49]. On-the-ground interventions: This involves direct physical actions like habitat restoration or creating small offset areas to mitigate localized environmental impacts [48]. Avoidance/preventing loss: These measures are aimed at preserving critical habitats or protecting sensitive areas from further degradation by preventing development [54]. Behavioral changes: This category includes changes in personal or community behaviors that lead to reduced environmental impacts, such as waste reduction or choosing sustainable transportation, along with efforts to increase environmental knowledge and foster better relationships between people and nature [55]
2.3 Recommendation criteria for LEA success
The recommendations presented in this synthesis are based on a structured analysis of case studies (Table 1) focused on localized environmental actions (LEAs). Each case study was assessed across a consistent set of implementation characteristics under 2.2 (also see Table 2). These elements were then sorted and synthesized according to three core categories that repeatedly emerged across cases and literature: feasibility and accessibility, trackability and measurability, and scalability and integration.
These categories reflect widely recognized principles in community-based environmental initiatives. For example, feasibility and accessibility are essential to ensure that projects can be meaningfully adopted, maintained, and benefit the communities they serve. Without these, long-term participation and relevance tend to decline [46,56–58]. Trackability and measurability are critical for demonstrating progress, maintaining transparency, and ensuring that collective goals, such as equity, impact, or accountability, are being met [27,59–63]. Finally, scalability and integration speak to the potential for LEAs to extend their benefits beyond a single site or group, and to connect meaningfully with broader policy or planning frameworks. Without these, projects often remain isolated or fail to persist once initial support ends [13,49,64,65].
The case studies varied in how strongly they reflected these principles, but collectively they provided a semi-quantitative foundation for identifying what contributes to LEA success. This analysis informed the identification of success factors that are explored in more detail in the discussion and provides a foundation for future work to build context-sensitive but generalizable guidance for LEA design [14,46,66].
3. Results
LEAs were distributed across 40 different countries (Fig 2; S2 Table) and can be divided into 5 broad program types covering community gardens, small -scale renewable energy installation, local conservation efforts, regulated small-scale systems, and online-based global projects supplemented by information on mitigation mechanism and scaling and verification (Table 2). A reference list with links to individual projects can be found in the supplements (S2 Table, S3 Table).
This map illustrates the locations of various projects worldwide, classified by their category: Community Garden (Green), Small-Scale Renewable Energy (Blue), Local Conservation Effort (Orange), Regulated Small-Scale System (Red), and Online-Based Global Project (White). Map generated in R (ggplot2; dplyr; sf; rnaturalearth; rnaturalearthdata; tibble; Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com.).
3.1 Community gardens
Community gardens are collaborative initiatives where residents collectively grow food and plants, transforming underutilized urban or suburban spaces into productive green areas. These gardens provide multiple benefits, including improved food security, enhanced urban green spaces, and stronger community ties. For example, the Brooklyn Grange in New York City operates rooftop farms across the city, producing organic vegetables while serving as a hub for community engagement and education. The project demonstrates the potential for urban agriculture on a large scale, converting rooftops into productive farms [75]. In the UK, the Incredible Edible Movement in Todmorden has transformed public spaces into communal gardens, promoting local food production and self-sufficiency. This initiative has inspired similar projects globally, highlighting the scalability of community gardens [76]. In Los Angeles, the L.A. Community Garden Council manages multiple community gardens, promoting urban agriculture and community interaction. The council offers workshops on sustainable practices, further enhancing community involvement [77].
Community gardens offer scalable models of local environmental stewardship that enhance biodiversity, improve air quality, and mitigate urban heat island effects. These models are easily replicable in other neighborhoods or cities, depending on land availability and community interest and utilize mostly in the nature-based and behavioral based mechanisms (Table 2).
3.2 Small-scale renewable energy installations
Small-scale renewable energy installations focus on decentralized energy production through technologies like residential solar panels and small wind turbines. These projects reduce reliance on fossil fuels, contributing significantly to carbon footprint reduction and promoting energy independence. For instance, SunPower’s residential solar program, with other equivalent programs existing through other companies and across the globe, in the United States provide homeowners with the opportunity to install solar panels, generating their own renewable energy [78]. The program includes options for leasing or purchasing solar systems, with the potential for savings on electricity bills and the ability to contribute excess power back to the grid. Similarly, small wind turbine installations allow individuals and small businesses to generate renewable electricity, providing an alternative energy source that supports local renewable energy targets [79]. In rural Africa, SolarAid’s Solar Home Systems offer solar lighting to off-grid households, replacing kerosene lamps and thereby reducing carbon emissions while improving living conditions and supporting local economic development [80] (Table 2).
Small-scale renewable energy installations provide substantial environmental benefits by reducing carbon footprints and promoting energy independence. While the scalability of these projects is influenced by factors such as initial costs and local regulations, aggregating multiple installations can significantly contribute to regional renewable energy goals.
3.3 Local conservation efforts
Local conservation projects aim to preserve or restore ecosystems and wildlife habitats, often involving collaboration between community groups, NGOs, or government agencies. These efforts address specific environmental issues within a given area while contributing to broader conservation goals. The Million Tree Initiative in multiple cities like Los Angeles or Denver, for example, aims to plant one million trees across the cities to improve air quality, enhance urban green spaces, and provide community benefits. This large-scale effort is supported by partnerships with local organizations and residents [81]. Similarly, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s stream restoration projects focus on restoring wetlands and riparian buffers along the Chesapeake Bay, improving water quality, and supporting wildlife habitats. These projects directly address environmental degradation in the watershed [82]. In Kenya, the Kenya Forest Service’s Community Forest Associations engage local communities in forest conservation and reforestation efforts. This program tackles deforestation and habitat loss while promoting sustainable land management practices [83] (Table 2).
Local conservation efforts enhance biodiversity and restore ecological balance. When integrated with regional or national conservation strategies, these projects can significantly contribute to broader environmental goals. Their success often relies on community engagement and the integration of scientific and local knowledge.
3.4 Regulated small-scale systems
Regulated systems ensure that small-scale environmental impacts are managed through structured frameworks, offering a way to offset localized impacts within a regulated context. The European Union Biodiversity Offset Program, for example, allows for small-scale offsets such as habitat restoration and species protection. This program provides a regulated approach to managing environmental impacts associated with development projects [84]. In the United States, the Government’s in lieu fee program requires developers to offset environmental impacts by funding conservation projects or habitat restoration, including smaller-scale, localized efforts that contribute to overall conservation goals in the case of recreational or residential development as opposed to large scale traditional offsets [85]. Also located in the United States, the Habitat Exchange platform enables landowners to generate and trade habitat credits on their private land to offset environmental impacts. This platform incorporates smaller-scale conservation actions within a structured approach to environmental compensation [86].
Regulated LEAs as part of larger systems provide a structured method for addressing environmental impacts and can be integrated into larger regulatory frameworks. They offer flexibility for localized mitigation while ensuring compliance with environmental standards.
3.5 Online-based global projects
These projects leverage digital platforms to facilitate global participation in environmental efforts, enabling individuals and organizations to contribute to carbon reduction and conservation on a broader scale. Cool Effect, for instance, is an online platform that allows individuals and businesses to support a range of vetted carbon reduction projects worldwide. These projects include nature-based solutions, technology-driven approaches, and community initiatives. The platform’s rigorous vetting process ensures high-quality offsets, allowing users to select projects that align with their values [87]. Another example is Ecosia, a search engine that uses its ad revenue to fund global tree-planting projects. For every search performed, Ecosia donates a portion of its profits to reforestation initiatives, seamlessly integrating environmental action into everyday digital activities [88].
Online-based global projects like Cool Effect and Ecosia demonstrate how technology can scale small actions into significant environmental impacts (Table 2). By making participation accessible and integrating environmental efforts into daily routines, these platforms exemplify the potential of LEAs in contributing to broader environmental goals.
4. Discussion
LEAs present a promising, flexible approach to environmental conservation, harnessing the power of small-scale actions that, when aggregated, can lead to significant environmental benefits. However, to fully realize their potential, these actions must meet a set of key criteria that ensure they are measurable, scalable, and transparent (Fig 3, Table 3). This study draws on a sample of 17 projects, offering a snapshot representation of common types of LEAs and related initiatives; as such, the findings should not be interpreted as prescriptive or universally representative, but rather as indicative of recurring themes and approaches within this diverse landscape.
The figure visualizes the process and flow of various LEA components, and potential pathways for success factors. It illustrates the stages from project initiation and verification to scaling mechanisms and aggregation. Symbols attribution uxwing.com.
This discussion will explore guiding principles and pathways that could support a potential framework for LEAs expanding on the three key components of feasibility and accessibility, trackability and measurability and scalability and integration as describe under 2.3. By focusing on these objectives, I aim to expand the fundamental elements that will enable LEAs to deliver lasting, impactful contributions to environmental conservation, providing a roadmap for both current and future initiatives.
4.1 Feasibility and accessibility
4.1.1 Clear and measurable outcomes.
Clear and measurable outcomes are fundamental to the effectiveness of LEAs. They provide a concrete means of assessing whether the initiatives are achieving their environmental goals (Table 3) [89,90]. By establishing specific, quantifiable objectives, such as carbon sequestration rates [54] or habitat restoration metrics [91], stakeholders can evaluate the success of the projects and ensure that their contributions yield tangible benefits [92]. This clarity supports accountability and helps participants understand the real-world impact of their involvement (Fig 3). For instance, Cool Effect allows users to support projects with well-defined carbon reduction targets, such as preventing deforestation or protecting essential habitat on Alaska [87]. Each project is assessed based on clear metrics, ensuring transparency and accountability. Similarly, community gardens like the Brooklyn Grange and the Incredible Edible Movement measure their impact through metrics such as the volume of produce grown and improvements in local biodiversity, which illustrates the tangible benefits of urban agriculture [75,76]. However, defining and consistently applying standardized performance metrics across diverse goals can be challenging due to the variability of ecosystems, communities and project objectives [27,40,56].
4.1.2 Accessibility and inclusivity.
Accessibility and inclusivity are critical for maximizing the potential of LEAs. Ensuring that a broad audience can participate in and benefit from these initiatives involves lowering barriers and accommodating diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. This inclusivity enhances collective impact and addresses equity issues by engaging various communities in environmental efforts [56,93,94]. Cool Effect, for instance, allows individuals to make small contributions towards carbon offsetting, starting with Carbon offsets of one ton, making it accessible to people from diverse financial backgrounds [87]. Community gardens, such as those managed by the L.A. Community Garden Council, provide garden plots to residents across different socioeconomic groups, fostering urban agriculture and community engagement [64,77]. Overall, removing financial and technical barriers that prevent underserved communities or smaller organizations from fully participating in LEAs requires an external funding and logistic support network, for instance offered through municipal grants and NGOs [46,65,94].
4.1.3 Economic sustainability.
Establishing clear funding models, such as micro-donations or subscriptions, supports ongoing projects and helps scale their impact [57,58,95]. Economic sustainability ensures that LEAs can continue to deliver environmental benefits over time without financial strain [37,55,60]. Cool Effect’s micro-donation model allows individuals to support environmental projects with small contributions, which collectively provide substantial financial support for large-scale initiatives [87]. Solar Home Systems by SolarAid are funded through donations and partnerships, ensuring that the systems can be sustained and continue to benefit off-grid communities [80]. However, while economic sustainability is often desirable, it may not be essential for every LEA to function effectively. Some LEAs may thrive through volunteer engagement, in-kind contributions, or short-term funding cycles, particularly in contexts where their goals are specific, localized, or non-commercial. It is also important to recognize that achieving economic sustainability can be particularly challenging in areas where donor fatigue or economic instability affects funding availability. Many LEAs require pre-project funding commitments or reserve-building to buffer against financial uncertainty [96,97]. Future research should explore under what conditions economic sustainability is a prerequisite versus when it is an added advantage.
4.1.4 Flexibility and adaptability.
Flexibility and adaptability enable LEAs to remain effective amidst evolving environmental conditions, regulations, and technologies. An adaptable approach ensures that projects can respond to new challenges and continue to deliver positive outcomes [9,98,99]. Ecosia’s business model is adaptable, allowing it to shift its tree-planting efforts to regions where reforestation is most urgently needed. This adaptability allows Ecosia to address changing environmental priorities effectively [88]. Local conservation efforts, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s stream restoration projects, can also adjust strategies based on ongoing environmental assessments and emerging needs [82]. Designing adaptive management systems that can respond to rapidly changing environmental conditions or emerging sustainability needs often requires significant upfront investment and ongoing effort [100,101].
4.2 Trackability and measurability
4.2.1 Robust tracking and verification.
Robust tracking and verification mechanisms are essential to ensure that the claimed environmental benefits of LEAs are realized and maintained [102]. Effective tracking systems prevent discrepancies between reported and actual outcomes, minimizing the risk of fraud, greenwashing and ensuring that the projects deliver on their promises [103,104]. Verification processes uphold project integrity and support long-term effectiveness (Fig 2) [60,105]. In the United States, In-Lieu Fee (ILF) programs exemplify this approach by incorporating extensive tracking and third-party verification. These systems monitor habitat restoration efforts and ensure compliance with regulatory standards [85]. Similarly, small wind turbine installations and renewable energy installations in general often involve rigorous certification processes to verify the amount of renewable energy generated, demonstrating the importance of robust oversight in achieving reliable outcomes [78,79]. Ensuring the credibility of projects through robust tracking and third-party verification is resource-intensive and may require advanced technologies that are not universally accessible or often not even necessarily of primary interest in small projects before being up-scaled or expanded [27,61,106]. Having a long-term vision across spatial and temporal scales can help alleviate that pressure during the planning process [107–109].
4.2.2 Transparency and accountability.
Transparency is vital for building trust and ensuring the credibility of LEAs. It involves clear reporting on how funds are used, project locations, and the outcomes achieved. Transparent practices help participants understand the real-world impact of their contributions and encourage continued engagement [38,62]. Ecosia exemplifies transparency by publishing regular financial reports and updates on its tree-planting projects, allowing users to see exactly where their contributions are going [88]. The Habitat Exchange also demonstrates transparency by providing detailed information about habitat credit trading and the environmental impacts achieved, fostering trust and accountability [86]. However, maintaining a high level of transparency, especially regarding financial allocation and environmental outcomes, can be challenging due to the complexity of reporting systems or the need to establish an accounting system from the ground up and the need to balance accessibility with data accuracy and maintenance [95,110].
4.2.3 Long-term commitment.
Long-term commitment is essential for maintaining the impact of LEAs. Ongoing monitoring and management ensure that the benefits of the offsets are sustained and that the environmental goals are not compromised, benefiting future generations, and optimizing costs. This commitment supports the achievement of lasting conservation outcomes [51,59,63]. Cool Effect, for example, transparently discloses the long-term duration of its programs, such as the 30-year Sea of Change program in Myanmar, with ongoing monitoring to ensure continued effectiveness [87]. Similarly, ILF programs include long-term management plans to maintain restored habitats and ensure ongoing ecological health, demonstrating a commitment to sustained impact [85,111]. Sustaining long-term monitoring, funding, and institutional support for LEAs, especially local ones and volunteer based ones, is challenging due to shifting priorities, stakeholder turnover, and resource limitations over time [112].
4.3 Scalability and integration
4.3.1 Scalability.
Scalability is a key feature of effective LEAs, as it allows small individual actions to aggregate into substantial environmental benefits (Fig 3). By enabling numerous small contributions to accumulate, scalability ensures that even moderate efforts can lead to significant impacts [49,113]. This is crucial for achieving broad environmental goals and integrating small-scale efforts into larger conservation strategies [9,33]. Ecosia, for example, demonstrates scalability through its search engine model, where each search contributes to reforestation efforts. The collective impact of millions of users leads to large-scale environmental benefits [88]. Similarly, Solar Home Systems by SolarAid illustrate scalability through widespread adoption across off-grid households in Africa, resulting in significant reductions in carbon emissions and improvements in living conditions [80]. Expanding LEAs to a larger scale while maintaining quality and alignment with broader sustainability goals can be resource-intensive and logistically complex and requires foresight during the planning process, similarly to the transparency and accounting system [37,49].
4.3.2 Integration with larger-scale efforts.
Integrating LEAs with larger environmental initiatives amplifies their impact and ensures alignment with broader conservation strategies and ecosystem service provision (Fig 3) [33,114]. This integration helps avoid using LEAs as substitutes for more substantial actions and enhances overall effectiveness [115,116]. In-Lieu Fee programs are designed to integrate into larger environmental mitigation frameworks, allowing LEAs to contribute to broader conservation goals [85,117]. Community gardens also often link with city-wide or regional sustainability efforts, contributing to broader urban greening and food security initiatives, thereby reinforcing their impact within a larger context [64,77]. While integration with larger initiatives is desirable, it can be challenging, especially when coordinating across diverse stakeholders or ensuring that local projects do not lose their relevance within broader frameworks [27,59,61]. Given that this study is based on a relatively small sample of LEAs, it is important to acknowledge that the capacity and potential for integration may vary significantly. Generalizing how LEAs should integrate with larger-scale efforts is difficult without a more comprehensive understanding of the full spectrum of LEA types. The logistical and policy challenges of aligning with overarching sustainability goals will differ across contexts [18,118], highlighting the need for tailored integration strategies based on specific LEA characteristics.
4.3.3 Community engagement and co-benefits.
Engaging local communities in projects can generate additional social and economic benefits (Fig 3). Community involvement ensures that projects address local needs and fosters a sense of ownership and stewardship [33,119]. This engagement not only enhances the effectiveness of the projects but also promotes broader social and economic development [31,93]. In-Lieu Fee programs often involve local stakeholders in planning and executing habitat restoration projects, ensuring that the projects meet local conservation needs and providing educational and development opportunities [85,117]. Similarly, Kenya Forest Service’s Community Forest Associations engage local communities in forest conservation and reforestation, addressing deforestation while promoting sustainable land management practices [83]. Nonetheless, engaging local communities effectively can be challenging when there are conflicting interests, for instance community vs sustainability benefits [13], insufficient local capacity, or a lack of trust in external stakeholders [65,120,121]. Furthermore, given the diversity of LEAs, it is important to approach community engagement strategies with caution. Not all LEAs may be equally successful in fostering community engagement or generating co-benefits, as local dynamics and project-specific challenges play a crucial role [32,61,122,123].
4.4 Towards a framework for localized environmental actions
The synthesized material provides insights into guidance and efforts towards a framework for exploring the potential of LEAs in contributing to environmental conservation and sustainability. By examining diverse case studies, such as community-based conservation initiatives, small-scale renewable energy projects, and innovative digital platforms, this work identifies key aspects that define the effectiveness, scalability, and integration of LEAs.
One critical distinction between large-scale offsets and mitigation and small-scale actions lies in their underlying drivers and focus. Large-scale offsets are typically policy-mandated; for example, companies are required to mitigate the environmental impacts of their activities through established offset programs [66]. These efforts primarily focus on quantifiable environmental impacts, such as carbon sequestration or habitat restoration, with secondary benefits like community or cultural contributions often being more recent additions [55,104].
In contrast, LEAs are often community-driven and inherently closer to local populations, addressing broader social and cultural dimensions alongside environmental goals [13,27]. For instance, initiatives like urban green spaces combat heat islands, provide recreational opportunities, and support mental well-being, while community gardens enhance food security and foster inclusion and equality [56,109,124]. Similarly, small-scale conservation actions often incorporate educational components, increasing environmental awareness and engagement at the grassroots level [125–127]. These aspects highlight how small-scale actions are uniquely positioned to address localized and multi-faceted community needs. Despite these differences, large- and small-scale projects are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they can be complementary and ideally should support each other since adherence to the identified success criteria can potentially increase administration costs for LEAs [109,113,128].
Policy integration and project cost reduction: Large-scale offsets, driven by regulations, provide structure and accountability [66], while small-scale actions can fill gaps by addressing specific, localized needs that large projects might overlook [35,106]. However, localized actions often lack the institutional support or infrastructure that large programs do, making them more costly and difficult to manage per unit of impact. To reduce these costs, top-down support can provide shared verification tools or logistic support that make implementation more efficient [41,129,130]. Policies should therefore encourage hybrid approaches and business designs that integrate large-scale mandates with mechanisms to support, simplify, and amplify small-scale efforts, ensuring a seamless flow from broad regulations to community-level benefits [3,41,131].
Environmental success alignment through flexibility and verification: While large-scale offsets often focus on ecosystem-wide impacts like habitat connectivity or carbon sinks [55,132], small-scale actions can deliver granular, site-specific benefits that enhance these broader goals [113]. For instance, urban greening initiatives can contribute to biodiversity corridors in cities, complementing regional reforestation projects [33]. However, without robust tracking mechanisms, the cumulative impact of these small-scale efforts may be undervalued. Top-down investment in shared monitoring systems, such as centralized dashboards or mobile verification apps, can reduce costs while increasing visibility and accountability [63,133,134]. Planning flexibility also ensures that goals remain achievable even when ecological, social or economic contexts shift, such as when a biodiversity-focused project must adjust timelines due to changes in local land use or funding availability [129,135–138].
Scalability and accessibility synergy with inclusive support: Large-scale offsets typically require significant financial and administrative resources, limiting direct participation [55]. In contrast, LEAs lower barriers for community involvement and encourage participation from underrepresented groups [37,112]. However, these projects often lack sustained funding and institutional backing, which increases per-project administrative burdens. Solutions include incentive-based funding that rewards verified outcomes, and policy alignment that embeds LEAs within larger frameworks to ensure durability [32,139,140]. Scaling mechanisms should be designed to translate effective small-scale models into broader programs while preserving their inclusivity and flexibility. By building in adaptive planning from the outset, acknowledging the interplay between community needs, resource availability, and environmental goals, projects can grow sustainably and equitably over time [129,141].
4.5 Limitations and conclusions
This study also recognizes certain limitations. The study is based on a purposive sample of 17 LEAs, representing a diversity of geographies, actors, and mechanisms. While this enables a grounded exploration of common characteristics and implementation strategies, it does not capture the full breadth of LEAs globally. As such, the findings should not be interpreted as prescriptive or universally representative, but rather as a snapshot of recurring patterns and challenges across a subset of LEAs.
LEAs can vary significantly across geographical regions due to differences in ecological priorities, cultural values, and governance structures [142, 143, 145, 146]. The diversity of LEAs means that some recommendations, such as the emphasis on economic sustainability or integration into larger frameworks, may not apply to all cases. Additionally, the socioeconomic conditions, access to technology, and policy frameworks within a region influence the accessibility, feasibility, and effectiveness of LEAs as discussed earlier [147–149]. These regional variations highlight the importance of tailoring small-scale conservation strategies to local contexts to maximize their impact and scalability [144,149]. Moreover, while examples of integration with broader initiatives are discussed to contextualize LEAs, the analysis is centered on local-scale actions, and large-scale programs were not evaluated directly. Future work would benefit from a more systematic sampling of LEAs and inclusion of longitudinal outcomes to strengthen the generalizability and applicability of findings.
Ultimately, the guidance presented here underscores the evolving role of LEAs in complementing traditional, large-scale approaches. By integrating small-scale solutions with broader strategies, these efforts offer a robust model for conservation and sustainability, addressing both environmental impacts and community needs [150,151]. This research contributes to the ongoing dialogue on how hybrid approaches can drive significant and holistic environmental change, demonstrating that large- and small-scale environmental actions, when thoughtfully combined, are more than the sum of their parts.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Search terms used in greylitsearcher to identify small-scale mitigation and offset programs through google search engine [53].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000185.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Synthesized mitigation and offset programs and reference links for more information.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000185.s002
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Synthesized mitigation and offset programs (n = 17) and information on location(s), type, verification, scaling and mitigation primary mechanisms.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000185.s003
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Ebersole JL, Quiñones RM, Clements S, Letcher BH. Managing climate refugia for freshwater fishes under an expanding human footprint. Front Ecol Environ. 2020;18(5):271–80. pmid:32944010
- 2.
Hoffman AJ. Carbon strategies: How leading companies are reducing their climate change footprint. University of Michigan Press. 2007.
- 3. Alberti FG, Varon Garrido MA. Can profit and sustainability goals co-exist? New business models for hybrid firms. JBS. 2017;38(1):3–13.
- 4. Allen C, Metternicht G, Wiedmann T. Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries. Sustain Sci. 2018;13:1453–67.
- 5. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 2012;486(7401):59–67. pmid:22678280
- 6. Doughty CL, Gu H, Ambrose RF, Stein ED, Sloane EB, Martinez M, et al. Climate drivers and human impacts shape 35-year trends of coastal wetland health and composition in an urban region. Ecosphere. 2024;15(4):e4832.
- 7. Maron M, Bull JW, Evans MC, Gordon A. Locking in loss: baselines of decline in Australian biodiversity offset policies. Biol Conserv. 2015;192:504–12.
- 8. Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS 3rd, Tilman D. Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(8):e277. pmid:16895442
- 9. Alizadeh B, Hitchmough J. A review of urban landscape adaptation to the challenge of climate change. IJCCSM. 2019;11(2):178–94.
- 10.
Amut A, Gong L, Yuan Z, Crovello T, Gao Z. Estimation of the ecological degeneration from changes in land use and land covers in the upper reaches of the Tarim River. In: Gao W, Ustin SL, editors. SPIE Proceedings. San Diego, California, USA; 2006: 62982H. Available from: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?doi=10.1117/12.696342
- 11. Eriksen M, Mason S, Wilson S, Box C, Zellers A, Edwards W, et al. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar Pollut Bull. 2013;77(1–2):177–82. pmid:24449922
- 12. Davenport MA, Bridges CA, Mangun JC, Carver AD, Williard KWJ, Jones EO. Building local community commitment to wetlands restoration: a case study of the Cache River Wetlands in southern Illinois, USA. Environ Manage. 2010;45(4):711–22. pmid:20127327
- 13. Lee SY. Creating social co-benefits for sustainable and just society. Aligning Clim Change Sustain Dev Policies Asia. 2021;:149–61.
- 14. Ehrlich PR. Human natures, nature conservation, and environmental ethics: cultural evolution is required, in both the scientific community and the public at large, to improve significantly the now inadequate response of society to the human predicament. BioScience. 2002;52(1):31–43.
- 15. Palomo I, Locatelli B, Otero I, Colloff M, Crouzat E, Cuni-Sanchez A, et al. Assessing nature-based solutions for transformative change. One Earth. 2021;4(5):730–41.
- 16. Arlidge WNS, Bull JW, Addison PFE. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience. 2018;68(5):336–47.
- 17. Green JF. Does carbon pricing reduce emissions? A review of ex-post analyses. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16(4):043004.
- 18. Freedman B, Keith T. Planting trees for carbon credits: a discussion of context, issues, feasibility, and environmental benefits. Environ Rev. 1996;4(2):100–11.
- 19. Apostolopoulou E, Adams WM. Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it. Oryx. 2017;51(1):23–31.
- 20. Bretschger L, Smulders S. Sustainable resource use and economic dynamics. Environ Resour Econ. 2007;36(1):1–13.
- 21. Campbell K, Bennett K, Adams C, Collier D, Messerly V. The state of compensatory mitigation. Envtl Rep News Anal. 2017;47:10817.
- 22. Theis S, Poesch MS. Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability. 2022;14(11):6652.
- 23. Probst BS, Toetzke M, Kontoleon A, Díaz Anadón L, Minx JC, Haya BK, et al. Systematic assessment of the achieved emission reductions of carbon crediting projects. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):9562. pmid:39543137
- 24. Theis S. Sentiment and attitudes toward offsetting and the biodiversity market in online media articles. Conserv Biol. 2024.
- 25. Buccino S. Our children’s future: applying intergenerational equity to public land management. Colo Nat Resour Energy Envtl Rev. 2020;31:509.
- 26. Loughran K. Parks for profit: the high line, growth machines, and the uneven development of urban public spaces. City & Community. 2014;13(1):49–68.
- 27. Delshad AB. Community gardens:An investment in social cohesion, public health, economic sustainability, and the urban environment. Urban For Urban Green. 2022;70:127549.
- 28. Guandalini I. Sustainability through digital transformation: A systematic literature review for research guidance. J Bus Res. 2022;148:456–71.
- 29. Coskun A, Zimmerman J, Erbug C. Promoting sustainability through behavior change: A review. Des Stud. 2015;41:183–204.
- 30. Bennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, McPhearson T, Norström AV, Olsson P. Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14(8):441–8.
- 31. Whitmarsh L, Seyfang G, O’Neill S. Public engagement with carbon and climate change: To what extent is the public ‘carbon capable’? Glob Environ Change. 2011;21(1):56–65.
- 32. F. Kowler L, Kumar Pratihast A, Pérez Ojeda del Arco A, Larson AM, Braun C, Herold M. Aiming for sustainability and scalability: community engagement in forest payment schemes. Forests. 2020;11(4):444.
- 33. Cerra JF. Emerging strategies for voluntary urban ecological stewardship on private property. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017;157:586–97.
- 34. Kamal S, Grodzinska-Jurczak M, Kaszynska AP. Challenges and opportunities in biodiversity conservation on private land: an institutional perspective from Central Europe and North America. Biodivers Conserv. 2015;24:1271–92.
- 35. Hamřík T, Košulič O. Impact of small-scale conservation management methods on spider assemblages in xeric grassland. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2021;307:107225.
- 36.
Andrews JF. Synthesized ecological design recommendations for the optimization of biodiversity on golf courses with an application to southern Ontario. 2022.
- 37. Armsworth PR, Cantú-Salazar L, Parnell M, Davies ZG, Stoneman R. Management costs for small protected areas and economies of scale in habitat conservation. Biol Conserv. 2011;144(1).
- 38. Keiter RB. Toward a National Conservation Network Act: Transforming landscape conservation on the public lands into law. Harv Envtl Rev. 2018;42:61.
- 39. Bond NR, Lake PS. Local habitat restoration in streams: Constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecol Manag Restor. 2003;4(3):193–8.
- 40. Garrett KP, Rose KS, McManamay RA. Ready or not, here it comes: Assessing the gaps in community plans for renewable energy transitions within the United States. Energy ResSoc Sci. 2023;102:103164.
- 41. Neves D, Silva CA, Connors S. Design and implementation of hybrid renewable energy systems on micro-communities: a review on case studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;31.
- 42.
Chandrasekaran J, Abirami A. Developing sustainable solutions for waste management in smart cities using blockchain. Convergence of blockchain technology and e-business. CRC Press. 2021. p. 155–72.
- 43. Katz D. Plastic Bank: Launching Social Plastic® Revolution. Field Actions Science Reports. 2019;(Special Issue 19):96–9.
- 44. López-Martínez S, Morales-Caselles C, Kadar J, Rivas ML. Overview of global status of plastic presence in marine vertebrates. Glob Chang Biol. 2021;27(4):728–37. pmid:33111371
- 45. UNFCCC. Cleaning our Oceans of Plastic - Haiti. Available from: https://unfccc.int/climate-action/un-global-climate-action-awards/planetary-health/cleaning-our-oceans-of-plastic-haiti. 2025.
- 46. Lerman SB, Larson KL, Narango DL, Goddard MA, Marra PP. Humanity for habitat: residential yards as an opportunity for biodiversity conservation. BioScience. 2023;73(9):671–89.
- 47. Richards DR, Thompson BS. Urban ecosystems: A new frontier for payments for ecosystem services. People Nat. 2019;1(2):249–61.
- 48. Ribaudo M, Hansen L, Hellerstein D, Greene C. The Use of Markets to Increase Private Investment in Environmental Stewardship. SSRN Electron J. 2008. http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1356857
- 49.
Blarke MB, Lund H. Large-scale heat pumps in sustainable energy systems: system and project perspectives. Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems. World Scientific. 2007: 69–78.
- 50. Cheshmehzangi A, Butters C. Sustainable living and urban density: the choices are wide open. Energy Procedia. 2016;88:63–70.
- 51.
Mori A, Suzuki K, Hori M, Kadoya T, Okano K, Uraguchi A, et al. Perspective: sustainability challenges, opportunities and solutions for long-term ecosystem observations. 2023;378(1881).
- 52. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45. pmid:18616818
- 53. Haddaway NR. Greylitsearcher: An R package and Shiny app for systematic and transparent searching for grey literature. Available from: 2022.
- 54. Markusson N. Natural carbon removal as technology. WIREs Climate Change. 2022;13(2).
- 55. van Kooten GC, Eagle AJ, Manley J, Smolak T. How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks. Environmental Science & Policy. 2004;7(4):239–51.
- 56. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough.’. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;125:234–44.
- 57. Bonham C, Steininger MK, McGreevey M, Stone C, Wright T, Cano C. Conservation trust funds, protected area management effectiveness, and conservation outcomes: lessons from the global conservation fund. PARKS. 2014;20(2):89–100.
- 58. Larson LR, Peterson MN, Furstenberg RV, Vayer VR, Lee KJ, Choi DY. The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do US college students support?. Conserv Sci Pract. 2021;3(10):e505.
- 59.
Avrami E. Sustainability, intergenerational equity, and pluralism: Can heritage conservation create alternative futures? Cultural Heritage and the Future. Routledge. 2020:198–216.
- 60. Bidaud C, Schreckenberg K, Jones JPG. The local costs of biodiversity offsets: Comparing standards, policy and practice. Land Use Policy. 2018;77:43–50.
- 61. Xiao X, Shailer G. Stakeholders’ perceptions of factors affecting the credibility of sustainability reports. Br Account Rev. 2022;54(1):101002.
- 62. Clements HS, Selinske MJ, Archibald CL, Cooke B, Fitzsimons JA, Groce JE, et al. Fairness and transparency are required for the inclusion of privately protected areas in publicly accessible conservation databases. Land. 2018;7(3):96.
- 63. Caughlan L. Cost considerations for long-term ecological monitoring. Ecol Indic. 2001;1(2):123–34.
- 64. Clarke LW, Jenerette GD. Biodiversity and direct ecosystem service regulation in the community gardens of Los Angeles, CA. Landscape Ecol. 2015;30(4):637–53.
- 65. Stupak I, Mansoor M, Smith CT. Conceptual framework for increasing legitimacy and trust of sustainability governance. Energy Sustain Soc. 2021;11(1):5. pmid:33758740
- 66. McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM. Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manage. 2010;45(1):165–76. pmid:19924472
- 67. Gwilliam KM, Geerlings H. New technologies and their potential to reduce the environmental impact of transportation. Transp Res Part Policy Pract. 1994;28(4):307–19.
- 68. Page G, Ridoutt B, Bellotti B. Location and technology options to reduce environmental impacts from agriculture. J Clean Prod. 2014;81:130–6.
- 69. Cortés-Capano G, Hanley N, Sheremet O, Hausmann A, Toivonen T, Garibotto-Carton G, et al. Assessing landowners’ preferences to inform voluntary private land conservation: The role of non-monetary incentives. Land Use Policy. 2021;109:105626.
- 70. Kelly EC, Gold GJ, Di Tommaso J. The willingness of non-industrial private forest owners to enter california’s carbon offset market. Environ Manage. 2017;60(5):882–95. pmid:28836080
- 71. Moilanen A. Planning impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting using software for spatial conservation prioritisation. Wildl Res. 2012;40(2):153–62.
- 72. Williams DR, Clark M, Buchanan GM, Ficetola GF, Rondinini C, Tilman D. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nat Sustain. 2020;4(4):314–22.
- 73. Baum CM, Gross C. Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change. J Bioeconomics. 2017;19:53–95.
- 74. Heiner M, Hinchley D, Fitzsimons J, Weisenberger F, Bergmann W, McMahon T. Moving from reactive to proactive development planning to conserve Indigenous community and biodiversity values. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2019;74:1–13.
- 75. Brooklyn Grange. Available from: https://www.brooklyngrangefarm.com/. 2024.
- 76. The Incredible Edible Movement. Available from: https://www.incredible-edible-todmorden.co.uk/. 2024.
- 77. L.A. Community Garden Council. Available from: https://www.lagardencouncil.org/. 2024.
- 78. SunPower Residential Solar Programs. Available from: https://us.sunpower.com/. 2024.
- 79. Small Wind Turbine Installations. Available from: https://www.thewindpower.net/. 2024.
- 80. Solar Home Systems by SolarAid. Available from: https://solar-aid.org/. 2024.
- 81. The Million Tree Initiative. Available from: https://whatcommilliontrees.org/. 2024.
- 82. Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Stream Restoration Projects. Available from: https://www.cbf.org/. 2024.
- 83. Kenya Forest Service’s Community Forest Associations. Available from: https://www.kenyaforestservice.org/. 2024.
- 84. European Union Biodiversity Offset Program. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/strategy/. 2024.
- 85. In-lieu fee programs. Available from: https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=107:2 2024.
- 86. The Habitat Exchange. Available from: https://www.edf.org/ecosystems/habitat-exchanges-how-do-they-work. 2024.
- 87. Cool Effect. Available from: https://www.cooleffect.org/. 2024.
- 88. Ecosia. Ecosia. Available from: https://www.ecosia.org/. 2024.
- 89.
Murillas A, Broszeit S, Pouso S, Bueno-Pardo J, Ruiz‐Frau A, Terrados J, et al. Ecosystem indicators to measure the effectiveness of marine nature-based solutions on society and biodiversity under climate change. 2023;4:100085.
- 90. Marshall E, Wintle BA, Southwell DM, Kujala H. What are we measuring? A review of metrics used to describe biodiversity in offsets exchanges. Biol Conserv. 2020;241:108250.
- 91. Block WM, Franklin AB, Ward JP Jr, Ganey JL, White GC. Design and Implementation of Monitoring Studies to Evaluate the Success of Ecological Restoration on Wildlife. Restor Ecol. 2001;9(3):293–303.
- 92. Convertino M, Baker KM, Vogel JT, Lu C, Suedel B, Linkov I. Multi-criteria decision analysis to select metrics for design and monitoring of sustainable ecosystem restorations. Ecol Indic. 2013;26:76–86.
- 93. Grodzińska-Jurczak M, Cent J. Can public participation increase nature conservation effectiveness?. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res. 2011;24(3):371–8.
- 94. Woolley CK, Hartley S, Nelson NJ, Shanahan DF. Public willingness to engage in backyard conservation in New Zealand: Exploring motivations and barriers for participation. People Nate. 2021;3(4):929–40.
- 95.
Larrea G. Transparency in the Climate Funds. Climate Funds and Sustainable Development: Who Pays in the End? Springer. 2024:87–126.
- 96. Kakupa P, Shayo HJ. Implementing sustainable development goal on education (SDG4) amid donor fatigue: Challenges for the Global South. Adv Soc Sci Res J. 2021;8(11):20–8.
- 97. Wanvik TI, Haarstad H. Populism, instability, and rupture in sustainability transformations. Ann Am Assoc Geogr. 2021;111(7):2096–111.
- 98. Bull JW, Hardy MJ, Moilanen A, Gordon A. Categories of flexibility in biodiversity offsetting, and their implications for conservation. Biol Conserv. 2015;192:522–32.
- 99. Drechsler M. Conservation management in the face of climatic uncertainty – the roles of flexibility and robustness. Ecol Complex. 2020;43:100849.
- 100. Mandle L, Shields-Estrada A, Chaplin-Kramer R, Mitchell MG, Bremer LL, Gourevitch JD. Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nat Sustain. 2021;4(2):161–9.
- 101. Kumar R, Verma A, Shome A, Sinha R, Sinha S, Jha PK, et al. Impacts of plastic pollution on ecosystem services, sustainable development goals, and need to focus on circular economy and policy interventions. Sustainability. 2021;13(17):9963.
- 102. Theis S, Ruppert JLW, Roberts KN, Minns CK, Koops M, Poesch MS. Compliance with and ecosystem function of biodiversity offsets in North American and European freshwaters. Conserv Biol. 2020;34(1):41–53. pmid:31058355
- 103. Boyd J, Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ. 2007;63(2–3):616–26.
- 104. Gonçalves B, Marques A, Soares AMVDM, Pereira HM. Biodiversity offsets: from current challenges to harmonized metrics. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;14:61–7.
- 105. Gonçalves B, Erb KH, Marques A, Soares AMVM, Soares AMVM, Pereira HM. Biodiversity offsets: from current challenges to harmonized metrics. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;14:61–7.
- 106. Small N, Munday M, Durance I. The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob Environ Change. 2017;44:57–67.
- 107. Puchol-Salort P, O’Keeffe J, van Reeuwijk M, Mijic A. An urban planning sustainability framework: Systems approach to blue green urban design. Sustain Cities Soc. 2021;66:102677.
- 108. Lucchi E, Buda A. Urban green rating systems: Insights for balancing sustainable principles and heritage conservation for neighbourhood and cities renovation planning. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2022;161:112324.
- 109. Smith JP, Meerow S, Turner II B. Planning urban community gardens strategically through multicriteria decision analysis. Urban For Urban Green. 2021;58:126897.
- 110.
Murataliyevna OD. Addressing financial challenges in NGOs: ensuring accountability, transparency, and long-term sustainability. 2025:95–7.
- 111. Wilkinson J. In-lieu fee mitigation: coming into compliance with the new compensatory mitigation rule. Wetl Ecol Manag. 2009;17(1):53–70.
- 112. Robinson JA, Kocman D, Speyer O, Gerasopoulos E. Meeting volunteer expectations—a review of volunteer motivations in citizen science and best practices for their retention through implementation of functional features in CS tools. J Environ Plan Manag. 2021;64(12):2089–113.
- 113. Hodgkison S, Hero JM, Warnken J. The efficacy of small-scale conservation efforts, as assessed on Australian golf courses. Biol Conserv. 2007;135(4).
- 114. Bitoun RE, David G, Devillers R. Strategic use of ecosystem services and co‐benefits for sustainable development goals. Sustain Dev. 2023;31(3):1296–310.
- 115. Salzman J, Weisbach D. The additionality double standard. Harv Environ Law Rev. 2024;48(1).
- 116. Spiekermann K. Buying low, flying high: Carbon offsets and partial compliance. Polit Stud. 2014;62(4):913–29.
- 117. Stephenson K, Tutko B. The Role of in Lieu Fee Programs in Wetland/Stream Mitigation Credit Trading: Illustrations from Virginia and Georgia. Wetlands. 2018;38(6):1211–21.
- 118. Reimer A, Prokopy L. One federal policy, four different policy contexts: An examination of agri-environmental policy implementation in the Midwestern United States. Land Use Policy. 2014;38:605–14.
- 119. Latham RE, Craig LS, Abs DJV. Land stewardship and freshwater outcomes: an overview of practice and results. Nat Areas J. 2019;39(1):6.
- 120. Zhang M, Atwal G, Kaiser M. Corporate social irresponsibility and stakeholder ecosystems: The case of Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal. Strategic Change. 2021;30(1):79–85.
- 121. Saif O, Keane A, Staddon S. Making a case for the consideration of trust, justice and power in conservation relationships. Conserv Biol. 2022;36(4):e13903. pmid:35212065
- 122. Boiral O, Heras-Saizarbitoria I. Managing biodiversity through stakeholder involvement: why, who, and for what initiatives? J Bus Ethics. 2015;140(3):403–21.
- 123. Beesley C, Hawkins D. Corruption, institutional trust and political engagement in Peru. World Dev. 2022;151:105743.
- 124. Bertram C, Rehdanz K. The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecol Econ. 2015;120:139–52.
- 125. Middlemiss L. Influencing individual sustainability: a review of the evidence on the role of community-based organisations. IJESD. 2008;7(1):78.
- 126. Berkes F. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage. 2009;90(5):1692–702. pmid:19110363
- 127. Smith PAC, Sharicz C. The shift needed for sustainability. Learn Organ. 2011;18(1):73–86.
- 128. Brondízio ES, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bates P, Carino J, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Ferrari MF. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Ann Rev Environ Res. 2021;46(1):481–509.
- 129. Ling C, Hanna K, Dale A. A template for integrated community sustainability planning. Environ Manage. 2009;44(2):228–42. pmid:19495860
- 130. Shediac-Rizkallah MC, Bone LR. Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Educ Res. 1998;13(1):87–108. pmid:10178339
- 131. Haigh N, Hoffman AJ. Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organ Dyn. 2012;41(2):126–34.
- 132. Saenz S, Walschburger T, González J, León J, McKenney B, Kiesecker J. A framework for implementing and valuing biodiversity offsets in Colombia: A landscape scale perspective. Sustainability. 2013;5(12):4961–87.
- 133.
Griffith J, Lord JM, Catchen MD, Arce-Plata MI, Blanchet G, Bohorquez MFG. BON in a box: an open and collaborative platform for biodiversity monitoring, indicator calculation, and reporting. 2024.
- 134. Johnson N, Druckenmiller ML, Danielsen F, Pulsifer PL. The use of digital platforms for community-based monitoring. Bioscience. 2021;71(5):452–66. pmid:33986630
- 135. Habib TJ, Farr D, Schneider RR, Boutin S. Economic and ecological outcomes of flexible biodiversity offset systems. Conserv Biol. 2013;27(6):1313–23.
- 136. Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ. Adaptive co‐management for social–ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7(2):95–102.
- 137. Dreiss LM, Hessenauer J-M, Nathan LR, O’Connor KM, Liberati MR, Kloster DP, et al. Adaptive management as an effective strategy: interdisciplinary perceptions for natural resources management. Environ Manage. 2017;59(2):218–29. pmid:27812797
- 138. Engert JE, Laurance SG. Economics and optics influence funding for ecological restoration in a nation-wide program. Environ Res Lett. 2023;18(5):054020.
- 139. Ling M, Xu L, Xiang L. Social-contextual influences on public participation in incentive programs of household waste separation. J Environ Manage. 2021;281:111914. pmid:33418385
- 140. Everett G, Adekola O, Lamond J. Developing a blue-green infrastructure (BGI) community engagement framework template. Urban Des Int. 2021;1–17.
- 141.
Knight A. Community-led design: Building frameworks for equity and justice. Designing for social justice. Routledge. 2025:17–33.
- 142. Tupala AK, Huttunen S, Halme P. Social impacts of biodiversity offsetting: A review. Biol Conserv. 2022;267:109431.
- 143. Ruoso L-E, Plant R. Distributive and contextual equity in landholder participation in biodiversity offsets: a case study of biodiversity offsets in New South Wales, Australia. Ecosystems and People. 2021;17(1):6–24.
- 144. Valdez JW, Pereira HM, Morejón GF, Acosta‐Muñoz C, Bonet Garcia FJ, Castro Vergara L. Tailoring evidence into action: Using a co‐design approach for biodiversity information in the Tropical Andes. Conserv Sci Pract. 2023;5(12):e13035.
- 145. Stephenson J. The cultural values model: an integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2008;84(2):127–39.
- 146. Alikhani S, Nummi P, Ojala A. Urban wetlands: a review on ecological and cultural values. Water. 2021;13(22):3301.
- 147. Lundquist CJ, Granek EF. Strategies for successful marine conservation: integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conserv Biol. 2005;19(6):1771–80.
- 148. Rahman MM, Mahmud MdAA, Shahidullah M. Socioeconomics of biodiversity conservation in the protected areas: a case study in Bangladesh. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2016;24(1):65–72.
- 149. Wilson KA, Carwardine J, Possingham HP. Setting conservation priorities. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1162:237–64. pmid:19432651
- 150. Lambin EF, Kim H, Leape J, Lee K. Scaling up Solutions for a Sustainability Transition. One Earth. 2020;3(1):89–96.
- 151. Woltering L, Fehlenberg K, Gerard B, Ubels J, Cooley L. Scaling–from “reaching many” to sustainable systems change at scale: a critical shift in mindset. Agric Syst. 2019;176:102652.
- 152. Newell JP, Foster A, Borgman M, Meerow S. Ecosystem services of urban agriculture and prospects for scaling up production: a study of Detroit. Cities. 2022;125:103664.
- 153. Keep Growing Detroit. 2023 Annual Report. 2025. https://www.detroitagriculture.net/