Psychological distress and workplace risk inequalities among conservation professionals

Abstract

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.

Supporting conservationists’ mental health through better working conditions

“…One metaanalysis of 8 cohort studies and 84,963 employees showed that workers exposed to higher ERI had a significantly greater subsequent risk of poor mental health (Rugulies et al, 2017). Furthermore, the positive association between ERI and distress was observed in a companion study among 280 field-based, office-based, and research staff working in 3 conservation organizations in Cambodia, India, and South Africa (Pienkowski et al, 2023). As such, the observed associations between the ERI score (and many of its constituent items) and psychological distress may be widely relevant for the conservation sector.…”

“…For example, multiple recent studies examine workplace stressors (e.g., isolation from family, poor health and safety, and inadequate compensation) experienced by conservation rangers (e.g., Anagnostou et al, 2022;Belhekar et al, 2020;Gao & Li, 2021;Moreto, 2016;Singh et al, 2020). Pienkowski et al (2023) surveyed 280 conservationists in 3 organizations in 3 countries and found that field-based employees were more likely to report imbalances between workplace efforts and rewards, in turn associated with higher psychological distress.…”

“…For example, numerous reviews and meta-analyses explore risk factors for poor mental health among healthcare workers and interventions to support them (e.g., López-López et al, 2019;Petrie et al, 2019). In contrast, there is little empirical research linking working conditions to the mental health of conservationists (but see Belhekar et al [2020], Gao & Li [2021], and Pienkowski et al [2023]). Yet, there is growing recognition of the need to better support those in environmental sectors, including regarding their mental health.…”