What Works in Conservation: New Study Reveals the Actions Making a Difference
- Natasha Dudek
- Apr 15
- 4 min read
The Earth is in the midst of a global biodiversity crisis. Of the ~150,000 species whose conservation status has been assessed, 28% are at risk of extinction, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Experts estimate that around one million species, including many that haven’t even been studied yet, could be facing extinction due to human activity.
To slow or reverse biodiversity loss, we need to act quickly and strategically. That means identifying and focusing on conservation efforts that are proven to work. A new study published in PLOS ONE in March 2025 set out to uncover which conservation actions are the most impactful. Using the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, a global database documenting species' extinction risk and conservation efforts, researchers from the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, the IUCN Red List Unit, and Durham University explored three key questions:
What conservation actions have been implemented for different species?
Which species have shown improvement in their conservation status?
Which actions were linked to these improvements?
Below we’ll explore what Simkins et al. (2025) discovered in response to each of these questions.
What conservation actions have been implemented for different species?
To answer this question, researchers focused on seven key types of conservation efforts.
Protected areas involve designating specific regions of land or sea to conserve biodiversity, often by limiting harmful human activity.
Area management plans go a step further by actively managing these spaces (restoring habitats, controlling fires, regulating tourism, etc) to support species' specific needs.
Control of invasive species or diseases includes removing or containing non-native predators, competitors, or pathogens that threaten native species.
Direct species management encompasses hands-on interventions such as supplementary feeding, nesting support, or medical treatment.
Reintroduction or translocation refers to moving individuals from captivity or from one location to another to rebuild or stabilize wild populations.
Public awareness and education campaigns aim to shift behaviors and garner support for conservation through outreach, community engagement, and education initiatives.
International legislation or trade restrictions focus on regulating activities like poaching and wildlife trafficking through policies such as CITES.
With those seven categories in mind, the researchers found some promising signs: more than half of all assessed species, and nearly 60% of threatened ones, have some form of documented conservation action underway. That’s likely an underestimate, since reporting to the IUCN Red List isn’t mandatory, and not all actions get captured in the data that studies analyze.
The most commonly reported conservation measure is that a species’ range overlaps with a protected area. This is often the only recorded action, especially for lesser-known species or those considered to be at lower risk. This finding is a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand, protected areas can be valuable tools for conservation, so it’s encouraging that many species have at least part of their range included within these protected zones. On the other hand, protected areas are typically established to preserve entire ecosystems or support local communities, not to address the unique needs of individual species. As a result, they don’t always deliver the targeted interventions, like protecting specific habitats or ensuring genetic diversity, that some species urgently require.
Which species have shown improvement in their conservation status?
Many species showing improvements in conservation status live on islands or within small, localized habitat patches. These settings often allow for more targeted, effective interventions, where threats can be more easily managed or eliminated. Additionally, species with shorter generation times were more likely to improve in status, likely due to their higher reproductive rates and resulting greater capacity for population recovery. Marine species, and especially marine mammals, showed more frequent recovery than their terrestrial counterparts. This may be due to fewer direct conflicts over space with humans, along with better regulation of fisheries and harvesting practices.
Despite these successes, the number of species whose status is deteriorating still far outweighs those showing signs of recovery. Habitat loss/degradation and hunting/fishing were the most significant threats, driving declines in a wide range of species. While conservation actions have helped prevent extinctions in some cases, there have been no examples of a species bouncing back from the brink of extinction to full recovery, underscoring how difficult true recovery can be.
Which actions were linked to improvements in conservation status?
The study found that nearly all species with improved conservation statuses had at least one documented conservation action in place, with many of these improvements directly linked to specific interventions. This is an important finding because it shows that conservation efforts work.
Reintroduction, translocation, and species-targeted management plans were particularly effective, often resulting in notable increases in population size or range and a reduction in extinction risk. For example, intensive captive breeding and reintroduction efforts helped the Mauritius Kestrel recover, with its population growing from just 4 individuals to over 250, leading to a downlisting from Critically Endangered to Vulnerable. Similarly, the successful eradication of invasive rats from Campbell Island facilitated the recovery of the Campbell Teal through effective management programs.
Certain conservation actions had a more significant impact on specific groups of species. For example, amphibians, which often have smaller ranges compared to other terrestrial vertebrates, tend to benefit more than others from site-based interventions like area management plans and protected areas.
Not all conservation efforts led to positive outcomes, often due to inadequate scale, ineffective implementation, or persistent threats like hunting. For example, although initial reintroduction efforts for the Arabian oryx in Oman were seen as successful, they ultimately failed following a resurgence in the illegal capture of the animals. Oryx were taken and either gifted or sold to private zoos and collectors, leading to a collapse of the wild population.
Conclusions
This research highlights an important truth: conservation can be highly effective, particularly when tailored to address the unique needs of individual species. By identifying which actions have led to real improvements in species’ status, this study offers valuable insights for shaping more effective conservation strategies moving forward.
While efforts to date have successfully reduced extinction risk for many species, especially those with limited ranges or acute threats, true recovery remains rare. Meeting global biodiversity goals will require not just more of the same, but a bold and coordinated scaling-up of efforts.
Study
