The following revisits the (slightly modified) original research questions, and explores the results of the Life in Conservation online survey corresponding to each. The overall aim of the project is to understand the prevalence of psychological distress within the conservation community, and factors influencing it.

A total of 2281 conservationists, working in 125 countries, participated in the global online survey (sample 1, Figure 1). A total of 183 participated in the two deep-dives (sample 2).

Figure 1. Where the online survey respondents work.

Figure 1. Where the online survey respondents work.

Question 1: How prevalent is psychological distress among conservationists?

In total, 41.3% of global online survey respondents reported high or very high levels of psychological distress (Figure 2.). Similarly, 35% of deep-dive respondents reported high or very high levels of psychological distress.

Figure 2. Kessler Psychological Distress Scale scores. All respondents scoring to the right of the black line reported high or very high levels of psychological distress.

Figure 2. Kessler Psychological Distress Scale scores. All respondents scoring to the right of the black line reported high or very high levels of psychological distress.

Question 2: What are the occupational risk factors for psychological distress, and how does it vary among conservationists

Figure 3. Estimated regression coefficients associated with psychological distress. ‘ERI (new)’, ‘years in conservation’, ‘age’, and ‘work hours’ and the composite variables SS and PS are scaled and centred. The coefficients pertaining to the latent response variable psychological distress are standardized (i.e. a one unit change in the explanatory variable is associated with a given standard deviation change in a latent response variable). ‘Health’, and the three social support and three personal security questions are exogenous ordinal variables, and are treated as numeric. The reference level for education is 'college', for position is 'desk-based', and for gender is 'female'. ERI = effort-reward imbalance, SO = situational optimism, GP = goal progress, F&F = friends and family, DO = dispositional optimism, PS = personal security, SS = social support. The estimates associated with 'unknown position' and 'unknown education' are not shown.

Figure 3. Estimated regression coefficients associated with psychological distress. ‘ERI (new)’, ‘years in conservation’, ‘age’, and ‘work hours’ and the composite variables SS and PS are scaled and centred. The coefficients pertaining to the latent response variable psychological distress are standardized (i.e. a one unit change in the explanatory variable is associated with a given standard deviation change in a latent response variable). ‘Health’, and the three social support and three personal security questions are exogenous ordinal variables, and are treated as numeric. The reference level for education is ‘college’, for position is ‘desk-based’, and for gender is ‘female’. ERI = effort-reward imbalance, SO = situational optimism, GP = goal progress, F&F = friends and family, DO = dispositional optimism, PS = personal security, SS = social support. The estimates associated with ‘unknown position’ and ‘unknown education’ are not shown.

Among the online survey respondents (sample 1), a 1 SD increase in the imbalance of efforts and rewards (ERI) was associated with 0.303 SD (95% CI 0.260 - 0.345 SD) higher risk of psychological distress (Figure 3). The mean ERI (new) score was 1.079 (the original ERI score was 1.23), exceeding the value of 1 which indicates a balance of efforts and rewards (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Panel A describes the level of agreement to questions about efforts. Panel B describes the level of agreement to questions about rewards (NB reverse coded questions indicate those that are reverse coded when calculating the Effort-Reward Imbalance score).

Figure 4. Panel A describes the level of agreement to questions about efforts. Panel B describes the level of agreement to questions about rewards (NB reverse coded questions indicate those that are reverse coded when calculating the Effort-Reward Imbalance score).

Among the deep-dive survey respondents (sample 2),

Figure X. Deep dive survey coefficeints.

Figure X. Deep dive survey coefficeints.

Question 3: What is the association between psychological distress and perceived progress towards current and future conservation goals?

Within sample 1, a 1 SD increase in the composite variable goal progress was associated with -0.054 SD (95% CI -0.015 - -0.094 SD) lower risk of psychological distress (Figure 3). Similarly, a 1 SD increase in situational optimism was associated with -0.040 SD (95% CI 0.001 - -0.082 SD) lower risk of psychological distress.

Figure 5. The structure of the SEM, excluding covariates unrelated to Question 3. PD = psychological distress, SO = conservation optimism, GP_total = perceived goal progress, DO = dispositional optimism, and mthd = the method affect associated with the Life-Orientation Test Revised. Only p-values for regressions are shown. Rectangles are observed variables, circles are latent variables. Pink nodes relate to Question 3.

Figure 5. The structure of the SEM, excluding covariates unrelated to Question 3. PD = psychological distress, SO = conservation optimism, GP_total = perceived goal progress, DO = dispositional optimism, and mthd = the method affect associated with the Life-Orientation Test Revised. Only p-values for regressions are shown. Rectangles are observed variables, circles are latent variables. Pink nodes relate to Question 3.