2026 is the year where conservation leaders can no longer make decisions on autopilot. Shifts regarding federal and state policy in addition to rising costs will likely impact nonprofit budgets. Plus, many donors are facing heightened uncertainty in decisions around how much they are able to give this year.

We need leaders making intentional choices about where and how to work. 2026 is the year to move away from dogmatic thinking.

• You can build on your past successes, but regularly making decisions only because “We’ve always done it that way” is not helping you achieve greater conservation outcomes.
• You can recommit to what matters most at the core, and you can question your approaches while thoughtfully assessing what needs to change.

I’ve been working with conservation nonprofits and studying conservation since 1997. What has changed in how we view human well-being and ecological outcomes in the last three decades? What’s in and what is out for 2026?

We need teams in conservation nonprofits that are aligned around what matters most. We cannot afford to have our internal teams debating about the inherent value of ecosystems and human dignity. Land trusts that do better in 2026 will support both these statements:

• We respect the dignity of all communities, and we prioritize hearing the voices of the people our work affects most.
• We honor the inherent value of all species, uniting our board, donors, and teams in a shared respect for the natural world.

During 2025, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to talk to dozens of land trusts, as well as with many partners of land trusts. Here are some of the trends I am seeing around what successful land trusts will do in 2026. So, what’s in and what’s out in 2026?

What’s in: Building trust with local communities and finding real ways to incorporate their needs and feedback into your goals and strategies.

What’s out: Not listening to local communities.

As my colleague Renee Brecht-Mangiafico shared in a recent conversation:

“Even the strongest ecological plans tend to falter if local communities don’t understand them, see themselves in them, or trust the process.”

What’s in: Expertly combining science and quantitative data with qualitative data, intuition, and stories of lived experience.

What’s out: Either extreme –making decisions based on feelings alone or only making decisions based on science.

My colleague Emily Nobel Maxwell recently shared on human wellbeing and ecosystem health for land trusts:

“The field that looks at these issues has gotten more sophisticated and nuanced, and the quantitative and qualitative data has improved and expanded, as well as the narrative and representative stories of lived experience.” 

What’s in: Nonprofit teams that work together around shared goals, while also having consistent shared messaging about your land trust’s outcomes.

What’s out: Each team member works on projects alone, and everyone from Board to staff talks about your work differently.

We see the most successful land trusts getting clear on what matter most for your mission. Your core goals that matter most for communities and ecosystems should stay consistent even in times of change.

What’s in: While goals stay consistent, successful land trusts are flexible around which properties to purchase and how to prioritize stewardship activities.

What’s out: Rigid acreage-based land protection goals.

Successful land trusts have a throughline across all of their land protection work. They can tell a cohesive narrative around why it matters and how your work adds up, even if the specific strategies evolve and adapt over time.

What’s in: Getting past false dichotomies. It’s no longer human well-being or ecosystem health – we now understand they both have inherent value and the success of one is linked to the success of the other. We acknowledge that human well-being applies both to land trust staff and to the communities we serve.

What’s out: Still holding the outdated belief that humans are separate from nature.

My colleague Michelle Doerr recently shared about the evolution of human well-being in conservation in recent years:

“What I’ve seen change most isn’t the ideas so much as the intensity. Over the last decade, the imbalance between our systems, our values, and our bodies has amplified. Burnout, grief, anger, and disconnection aren’t edge cases anymore. They are signals of the system.

In that sense, human wellbeing and ecosystem health are converging not just as concepts or metrics, but as lived, embodied experience. Our bodies seem to know something isn’t right, even when our language struggles to catch up. I think that’s part of why the language keeps evolving.”

In 2026, successful land trusts move beyond ‘autopilot’ decision-making toward an intentional and integrated approach that reflects the inherent value of nature and the dignity of all people. While the core mission of land trusts remains constant, strategies must evolve to meet today’s challenges, including rising costs, policy uncertainty, and the need for organizational resilience.

By moving beyond the false dichotomy of human well-being versus ecosystem health, leaders can align their teams and supporters around a shared recognition that the success of one is inextricably linked to the other. Ultimately, the most successful land trusts will remain flexible in their approach while staying rooted in their values. By combining data with the lived experiences of the communities they serve, conservation leaders can create a cohesive narrative that effectively communicates the importance of their work.