An international scoping review of rangers’ precarious employment conditions

Keane

Tickell

et al. 2022

Preprint

Biodiversity conservation work can be challenging but rewarding, with potential consequences for conservationists’ mental health. Yet, little is known about patterns of mental health among conservationists and its associated protective and risk factors. A better understanding may help improve working conditions, supporting conservationists’ job satisfaction, productivity, and engagement, while reducing costs from staff turnover, absenteeism, and presenteeism. We surveyed 2311 conservation professionals working across 122 countries, asking about experiences of psychological distress, personal characteristics, and workplace conditions. Over half were from and worked in Europe and North America, and most had university-level education, were in desk-based academic and practitioner roles, and responded in English. Moderate or severe distress was reported by 27.8% (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale scores over 24). Respondents with low dispositional and conservation-specific optimism, poor physical health, limited social support, women, and early-career professionals were most at risk in our sample. Heavy workload, job demands, and organisational instability were linked to higher distress, but job stability and satisfaction with one’s contributions to conservation were associated with lower distress. We suggest ways employers and others might ‘promote the positives’ and manage the risks of working in the sector, potentially supporting conservationists’ mental health and abilities to protect nature.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting those who protect nature by supporting conservationists’ mental health

Keane

Tickell

et al. 2022

Preprint

“…Multiple studies have been conducted on conservation workplace challenges, such as rangers' poor safety conditions, isolation from family, inadequate compensation, and precarious employment (Anagnostou et al, 2022). In one of the largest such studies, Singh et al (2020) surveyed over 1740 rangers across 40 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.…”

Section: Emotions Well-being and Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognizing reflexivity among conservation practitioners

Kiik

Catalano

et al. 2023

Conservation Biology

When deciding how to conserve biodiversity, practitioners navigate diverse missions, sometimes conflicting approaches, and uncertain trade‐offs. These choices are based not only on evidence, funders’ priorities, stakeholders’ interests, and policies, but also on practitioners’ personal experiences, backgrounds, and values. Calls for greater reflexivity—an individual or group's ability to examine themselves in relation to their actions and interactions with others—have appeared in the conservation science literature. But what role does reflexivity play in conservation practice? We explored how self‐reflection can shape how individuals and groups conserve nature. To provide examples of reflexivity in conservation practice, we conducted a year‐long series of workshop discussions and online exchanges. During these, we examined cases from the peer‐reviewed and gray literature, our own experiences, and conversations with 10 experts. Reflexivity among practitioners spanned individual and collective levels and informal and formal settings. Reflexivity also encompassed diverse themes, including practitioners’ values, emotional struggles, social identities, training, cultural backgrounds, and experiences of success and failure. Reflexive processes also have limitations, dangers, and costs. Informal and institutionalized reflexivity requires allocation of limited time and resources, can be hard to put into practice, and alone cannot solve conservation challenges. Yet, when intentionally undertaken, reflexive processes might be integrated into adaptive management cycles at multiple points, helping conservation practitioners better reach their goals. Reflexivity could also play a more transformative role in conservation by motivating practitioners to reevaluate their goals and methods entirely. Reflexivity might help the conservation movement imagine and thus work toward a better world for wildlife, people, and the conservation sector itself.

“…For example, the National Health Service in England has adopted a work plan that seeks to improve working conditions, thereby reducing staff turnover and improving patient care (NHS, 2019). In contrast, there is limited empirical research investigating the mental health of nature conservation professionals and the workplace factors influencing it (Anagnostou et al, 2022; Pienkowski, Keane, Castelló y Tickell, et al, 2022). Some exceptions include a study among 42 forest guards from six tiger reserves in India, which found that reported job satisfaction, alongside other factors, was linked to psychological wellbeing (Belhekar et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include studies describing difficulties in maintaining work‐life balances, which can harm personal relationships (Campos‐Arceiz et al, 2013; Ramos et al, 2017). It also includes research examining a broad range of issues faced by conservation rangers, including inadequate resourcing, poor health and safety conditions, dangers involved in law enforcement, and poor compensation (Anagnostou et al, 2022; Belecky et al, 2019; Moreto, 2016; Singh et al, 2020; Spira et al, 2019). Anagnostou et al (2022) provide a large review of studies on rangers' precarious employment conditions, while Pienkowski, Keane, Castelló y Tickell, et al (2022) summarize a range of literature on conservationists' working conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological distress and workplace risk inequalities among conservation professionals

Keane

Lange

et al. 2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

Workplaces can be sources of both stress and support, affecting employees' mental health and productivity. Yet, little research has investigated variability in workplace risk factors for poor mental health in conservation. We aimed to explore how patterns of psychological distress—a state of emotional disturbance—and associated workplace risk factors vary between conservation job roles. Working with three case study organizations in India, South Africa, and Cambodia, we surveyed 280 field‐based, office‐based, and research staff. Moderate or severe psychological distress was reported by 28.9%. Field‐based practitioners reported a greater imbalance between workplace efforts and rewards (0.35 standard deviation (SD), 95% credibility interval (CI) 0.03–0.67) than their colleagues, which was associated with greater psychological distress (0.24 SD, 95% CI 0.10–0.39). After controlling for this mediated relationship, researchers reported greater psychological distress than field‐based practitioners (0.37 SD, 95% CI 0.02–0.72). However, when accounting for all direct and indirect effects, there was no overall difference in distress between roles. Employers, funders, professional societies, and other institutions seeking to support conservationists' mental health should understand and offer support tailored to role‐specific challenges. Doing so might enhance conservationists' wellbeing while strengthening their ability to reverse global nature loss.