Search

Abstract Agroecological researchers and advocates often make assumptions about the social impact and dissemination of their work: researchers may assume that their work has impact through postresearch dissemination, while advocates may assume that new agroecological practices can be effectively spread through existing social networks. Here, we test these assumptions by quantifying the effects of an agroecological research project on farming practices and the social network in a village community in Papua New Guinea. The project aimed to test the effect of applying banana peel compost, chicken manure and NPK fertiliser on sweet potato yields. Local farmers were involved in the research as project garden owners or research assistants. Using stochastic actor‐oriented modelling, we tracked changes in farming practices and the social network. Over the course of the research project, more people started to use food waste on their farms, while animal manure and NPK fertiliser were not frequently adopted. Farmers also took up practices that were not directly researched, such as mulching and planting the specific variety of sweet potato that was used in the project. This suggests that local farmers created meaning from the project, despite the researchers not intending to give advice until the end of the project. The research project also affected the community's social network. Research assistants became more often sought‐after for advice, while knowledge about the project did not flow far from those directly involved. These results indicate that who gets involved in a project may have social consequences, and show the importance of understanding existing social networks before they are relied upon for spreading farming practices. Overall, this work challenges often‐held assumptions about the social impact and dissemination of agroecological research, provides insights into the types of agricultural innovations more likely to be accepted among farmers, and explores how new practices may most effectively be promoted within a community. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

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.

Abstract In the face of unprecedented biodiversity loss, the belief that conservation goals can be met could play an important role in ensuring they are fulfilled. We asked conservationists how optimistic they felt about key biodiversity outcomes over the next 10 years; 2341 people familiar with conservation in 144 countries responded. Respondents expressed optimism that enabling conditions for conservation would improve but felt pressures would continue, and the state of biodiversity was unlikely to get better. Respondents with greater general optimism about life, at early‐career stages, and working in practice and policy (compared to academia) reported higher conservation optimism. But most of our biodiversity and conservation status indicators were not associated with conservation optimism. Unbounded optimism without appropriate action would be misguided in the face of growing threats to biodiversity. However, supporting those struggling to see the light at the end of the tunnel could help sustain efforts to overcome these threats.