As in other sectors, the challenges and rewards that conservationists face may be significant factors affecting their mental health1. Mental health has been defined as a “state of wellbeing in which the individual realises [their] own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to [their] community”2. Stage-based models of mental illness suggest a spectrum from low-level psychological distress to increasingly specific symptoms, finally passing diagnostic thresholds for mental illnesses3,4. Mental illness is a leading contributor to the global burden of disease, with over 260 million people estimated to have had depression in 20175. In the UK alone, poor mental health was estimated to cost employers between £33 billion and £42 billion in 20166. Most people experience variable mental health throughout their lives and can be helped to thrive even when experiencing mental illness6.
Conservation can be a tough sector to work in. Conservationists exposed to the loss of nature but provided with inadequate support might face acute ecological grief7. This grief may be a natural and legitimate response to perceived societal inaction, feelings of powerlessness, and the expectation that future environmental targets will not be met8,9. These feelings may be exacerbated by the “gloom-and-doom” narrative prevalent in some conservation discourse10. The conservation sector is also underfunded. For example, conservation spending is estimated to be an order of magnitude smaller than is required to meet critical global biodiversity targets11. This underfunding may partly explain the prevalence of precarious, inadequately compensated, and poorly resourced conservation jobs (e.g., 12). Furthermore, the vocational nature of conservation work can encourage exploitative practices, such as long-term unpaid or low-paid work, that affects those from disadvantaged backgrounds and junior members of the profession worst13–15. Moreover, many conservation roles blur the boundary of personal and professional lives. For instance, conservation scientists often work outside regular office hours, may be based in remote locations, and spend significant time away from friends and family16,17. Similarly, some in the sector can have conflicting responsibilities and loyalties, which may be distressing. For instance, protected area rangers can come from or live in the communities they police, which may create tensions with friends, neighbours, and family18. In other cases, conservationists can face hard choices when trading-off objectives19, which could be compounded by the challenges of interdisciplinary research and practice20 and ideological conflicts with peers (e.g., 21). These challenges are not equally experienced within the sector and can vary by job role, geography, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, gender, and other identities and social relations22–24. For example, several recent studies examine workplace stressors – such as isolation from family, poor health and safety, and inadequate compensation – experienced by conservation rangers18,25−29.
Yet, working in conservation can also be rewarding. Many people across numerous sectors seek work that aligns with their values or contributes to societal causes30. Doing value-aligned work is also important for many conservationists, such as those motivated by their love of nature and its perceived intrinsic and instrumental values31. Engaging in value-aligned work can be a source of satisfaction and meaning in conservationists’ lives12. Some types of conservation work also provide beneficial opportunities to spend time in nature, travel, learn and grow, and interact with colleagues and other groups31,32.
These challenges and rewards, and the balance between them, are likely to play a role in conservationists’ mental health. There are multiple reasons why the conservation sector should care about the mental health of its members. For individuals, good working conditions can enhance job satisfaction and quality of life beyond work33. Such conditions are often associated with better job performance and career advancement and might help those who want to remain in the sector to do so34. There are also pragmatic reasons why organisations should care about staff mental health. Good working conditions can increase staff engagement, creativity and productivity while reducing costs from absenteeism, presenteeism (working while being unwell), and staff turnover6,35. Good working conditions may also ease stress-induced workplace conflict and reduce incentives for misconduct36,37. In many countries, employers have a duty of care towards their staff; failure to fulfil this duty might pose liability risks. Across the sector, a more productive and innovative workforce might be better able to deliver conservation action.
Substantial evidence suggests that good working conditions can be good for mental health33. Efforts to support mental health at work can involve ‘promoting the positive’, preventing harm, and helping manage mental illness regardless of the cause1,6. ‘Promoting the positives’ involves identifying and enhancing aspects of work that support job satisfaction and wellbeing. Among conservationists, these aspects may include feeling like one is making a “meaningful contribution” or spending time in nature12,31. Supporting mental health also involves preventing harm from workplace stressors. These include imbalances between workplace efforts and rewards, high job demand, job insecurity, and lack of social support from colleagues (e.g., 38–40). Finally, organisations can also provide adjustments to support those with mental illness to stay in or return to work (although these interventions are beyond the scope of this article).
Healthcare, education, emergency services, and other sectors have a history of investigating and acting to support worker mental health. For example, we found multiple meta-analyses exploring risk factors for mental illness among healthcare workers and interventions to support them41,42. In contrast, we found only a few studies exploring mental health among conservationists (see Belhekar, et al. 28 and Gao and Li 26, who examine psychological wellbeing and stress among rangers in India and China, respectively). As such, the conservation sector as a whole appears to have lagged behind other sectors. Nevertheless, there is growing recognition of the need to better support those in conservation, given the diverse challenges many in the sector face. For example, the International Ranger Federation aims to professionalise ranger roles and plans to develop minimum standards around working conditions and welfare43. Equally, the Lonely Conservationists website shares conservationists’ experiences and resources to support mental health (www.lonelyconservationists.com). Therefore, while the lessons learned in other sectors are likely to be informative, these should be evaluated and tailored to the unique challenges and rewards experienced by conservationists.
This study aims to increase understanding of the patterns and risk factors of psychological distress – a state of emotional disturbance that impairs social functioning and daily activities44 – within conservation. In doing so, we hope to catalyse efforts to support those in the sector better. We convenience-sampled conservationists through an internet survey (https://livedataoxford.shinyapps.io/lifeinconservation/), available in six languages, from July 2019 to August 2020. We investigated two research questions. First, how prevalent is psychological distress within a sample of the conservation community? Second, what personal characteristics and workplace factors are associated with psychological distress? Psychological distress was measured using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler-10)45. Two structural equation models were fitted, exploring hypothesised associations between personal characteristics, workplace conditions, and latent psychological distress (Table 1, see Supplementary Information (SI) 1 for details). One set of variables in the analysis related to the extent to which workplace rewards offset efforts, measured using a modified version of the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) instrument46. The first model (‘ERI-score model’) included the total ERI score for each respondent but excluded individual instrument items. Conversely, the second model (‘ERI-item model’) included each item of the ERI instrument but excluded total imbalance scores.
Table 1
Personal characteristics and occupational risk factors that were expected to be associated with psychological distress in two models (see SI 1 for details). The ‘ERI-score model’ includes the effort-reward imbalance score but excludes each item of the effort-reward imbalance instrument. The ‘ERI-item model’ includes each item of the instrument but excludes the effort-reward imbalance score. * Variables moderately correlated with other explanatory variables (rho > 0.6) were removed from the statistical analysis post-hoc. †Ordinal exogenous variables were treated as numeric. ‡Conservation-specific items added to the original effort-reward imbalance instrument. Key: RL = reference level; + = expected positive association; - = expected negative association; and ? = ambiguous or unclear expected association.
Association | Name | Model | Description or statement |
- | Dispositional optimism | Both | A latent variable derived from the Life Orientation Test – Revised47. Dispositional optimism is the general expectation of good outcomes in life48. |
- | Situational optimism | Both | A latent variable describing situational optimism about conservation outcomes over the next decade49. Situational optimism is the expectation of positive outcomes within a specific context50. A correlation between situational and dispositional optimism was included in the analysis. |
- | Gender | Both | Female or male (RL = female). |
? | Age* | Both | Age in years. |
? | Years in conservation | Both | Years working in conservation. |
? | National / non-national | Both | Working in one’s country of nationality or not (RL = national). |
? | Education | Both | University or non-university education (RL = non-University). |
- | Physical health† | Both | “How is your physical health in general?” |
- | Personal relationships† | Both | Satisfied with “your personal relationships?” |
- | Friends and family support† | Both | Satisfied with “the support you get from your friends and family?” |
- | Friends and family time† | Both | Satisfied with “the amount of time you are able to spend with friends and family”† |
+ | Effort-reward score | ERI-score model | The adapted effort-reward imbalance score46. |
+ | Heavy workload† | ERI-item model | “I have constant time pressure due to a heavy work load”. |
+ | Many disturbances*,† | ERI-item model | “I have many interruptions and disturbances while performing my job”. |
+ | Increasingly demanding job† | ERI-item model | “Over the past few years, my job has become more and more demanding”. |
+ | Not enough resources†,‡ | ERI-item model | “I do not have the resources I need to achieve my work goals”. |
+ | Not enough funding*,†,‡ | ERI-item model | “The organisation I work for does not have enough funding to achieve its main aims”. |
+ | Organisational instability†,‡ | ERI-item model | “The organisation I work for may not exist in five years’ time”. |
- | Respect I deserve*,† | ERI-item model | “I receive the respect I deserve from my boss and work colleagues”. |
- | Job advancement prospects*,† | ERI-item model | “My job promotion or advancement prospects are poor (reverse coding)”. |
- | Do not expect undesirable job change† | ERI-item model | “I have experienced or I expect to experience an undesirable change in my work situation (reverse coding)”. |
- | Good job security† | ERI-item model | “My job security is poor (reverse coding)”. |
- | Respect and prestige† | ERI-item model | “Considering all my efforts and achievements, I receive the respect and prestige I deserve at work”. |
- | Job advancement† | ERI-item model | “Considering all my efforts and achievements, my job promotion or advancement prospects are adequate”. |
- | Income is alright† | ERI-item model | “Considering all my efforts and achievements, my salary or income is alright”. |
- | Contribution to conservation†,‡ | ERI-item model | “I am satisfied with the contribution I make to conservation”. |
- | Social pride†,‡ | ERI-item model | “My friends and family are proud that I work in conservation”. |
? | Position | Both | Academia and research or practice and policy (RL = academia and research). |
+ | Dangerous at night*,† | Both | “It is dangerous to go outside at night alone”. |
+ | Dangerous situations† | Both | “My work puts me in dangerous situations”. |
+ | Not feeling safe† | Both | “I do not feel safe, even where I live”. |
+ | Working hours | Both | Work hours per week. |