Search

The persistence of African megafauna (herbivores >10 kg) in savannas is at risk from anthropogenic pressures including land–use change, bush–meat hunting and poaching. The mitigation of these risks, while still ensuring socio-economic improvement, is a crucial challenge to megafauna conservation and sustainable development across Africa. Protected areas are designed to diminish these risks, yet evidence from individual protected areas and countries suggests that megafauna populations within protected areas are increasingly affected by negative human influence. However, on the continental scale, it remains unclear to what degree megafauna in African savanna protected areas are affected by human influences relative to natural drivers. We quantified the relative influence of human and natural drivers on biomass from 47 megafauna species, estimated from aerial surveys across 296 survey areas in 12 African countries, spanning 550,452 km2 of protected savanna. The Human Development Index (HDI) emerged as the strongest predictor of megafauna biomass within protected areas across Africa, exceeding the importance of the main natural drivers (natural savanna habitat, water availability) and other human–related drivers (roads, environmental governance, and livestock density). Importantly, our findings show that megafauna biomass is suppressed to 0.50). This indicates that improving socioeconomic conditions surrounding savanna protected areas could substantially enhance megafauna conservation across the continent, while addressing numerous sustainable development goals for local communities.

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.

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 can help improve working conditions, supporting conservationists’ job satisfaction, productivity, and engagement, while reducing costs from staff turnover, absenteeism, and presenteeism. We surveyed 2311 conservationists across 143 countries, asking about experiences of psychological distress, personal characteristics, and workplace conditions. Moderate or severe distress was reported by 27.8%. Respondents with low dispositional and conservation-specific optimism, poor physical health, limited social support, women, and early-career professionals were most at risk. 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 could support conservationists’ mental health and ability to tackle the global ecological crisis.