Changing models of commercialization of conservation areas and their impacts: A systematic literature review

• Conservation areas are increasingly commercialised • Four models of commercialization: coercive, incentive-based, decentralized, and public–private partnerships • Coercive models often exacerbate exclusion, inequality, and conflicts, as their primary aim is to maintain full control • Incentive-based, decentralized, and partnership models may generate more positive outcomes when inclusively designed and implemented • The state remains a central actor across cases, shaping access, benefit distribution, and decision-making power Areas dedicated for conservation have increased immensely over the past decades. The striking feature about the process of expansion are the trends of their commercialization that have taken place alongside them. To more systematically examine these interactions, this paper reviews 288 peer-reviewed articles published until 2024. Following PRISMA guidelines the analysis sorts and synthesizes models of commercialization of conservation areas and their implications. Four primary models are identified: coercive (33%), incentive-based (31%), decentralized (17%), and public–private partnerships (19%). While each model differs in mechanisms and outcomes, the state remains a central actor across cases, shaping access, benefit distribution, and decision-making power. Coercive models overwhelmingly yield negative impacts, with 87 cases representing 91% of all coercive instances. These models often exacerbate exclusion, inequality, and conflict, as their primary aim is to maintain full control. In contrast, incentive-based, decentralized, and partnership models may generate more positive outcomes when inclusively designed and implemented with 39, 30, and 21 cases reporting beneficial impacts, respectively. Nevertheless, these models continue to mask subtle forms of control, including symbolic participation, elite capture, and recentralization. However, temporal and geographical shows that coercive models remain dominant, particularly in Global South, and continue to prevail in recent publications. Future research should prioritize longitudinal evaluations to capture long term impacts, and investigate how local communities navigate the disruptions. Furthermore, critical examination is needed to assess how international discourses and internal political factors influence a state's adoption of specific models, particularly where commercial interests are legitimized under the guise of progressive conservation.