Balancing making a difference with making a living in the conservation sector

Goals play important roles in people's lives because they focus attention, mobilize effort, and sustain motivation. Understanding conservationists’ satisfaction with goal progress may provide insights into real-world environmental trends and flag risks to their well-being and motivation. We asked 2694 conservationists working globally how satisfied they were with progress toward goals important to them. We then explored how this satisfaction varied among groups, including demographic and occupational. Finally, we looked at respondents' experiences associated with goal-progress satisfaction. Many (94.0%) indicated that making a meaningful contribution to conservation was an important goal for them, and over half were satisfied or very satisfied in this area (52.5%). However, respondents were generally dissatisfied with progress on collective conservation goals (e.g., stopping species loss). Some groups were more likely to report dissatisfaction than others. For instance, those in conservation for longer tended to be less satisfied with collective goal progress (log odds –0.21, 95% credibility interval [CI] –0.32 to –0.10), but practitioners reported greater satisfaction (log odds 0.38, 95% CI 0.15–0.60). Likewise, those who were more optimistic in life (log odds 0.24, 95% CI 0.17–0.32), male (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.10–0.41), and working in conservation practice (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.43) reported greater satisfaction with individual goal progress. Free-text responses suggested widespread dissatisfaction with livelihood goals, particularly related to job security and adequate compensation. Although contributing to conservation appeared to be a source of satisfaction, slow goal progress in other areas––particularly around making a living––looked to be a source of distress and demotivation. Employers, funders, professional societies, and others should consider ways to help those in the sector make a difference while making a satisfactory living by, for example, prioritizing conservationists′ well-being when allocating funding. This support could include avoiding exploitative practices, fostering supportive work environments, and celebrating positive outcomes.     

Decabrominated diphenyl ether in river fish and sediment samples collected downstream an industrial park

Fish, sediment and water samples from different places along the Spanish River Vero, a tributary of the Cinca River in the Ebro River basin, were collected in two different sampling campaigns, the first one during November 2004 and the second one in November 2005. The samples were collected up- and downstream from an industrial park. A total of 29 fishes, 6 sediments and 3 water samples were analyzed for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Analytical work included 23 congeners, from tri- to deca-BDEs. The highest values for both sediment and fish samples were found downstream of the industrial park. High BDE-209 contamination was found in these sediment samples, with values up to 12 microg g(-1) dry weight. Moreover, BDE-209 was detected in 14 out of 15 biota samples collected downstream the industrial park, at concentration levels ranging from 20 to 707 ng g(-1) lipid weight, whereas it was not detected in samples collected upstream. These fish concentrations proved the bioavailability of BDE-209 and represented the highest deca-BDE values found in aquatic biota. The analysis of industrial effluents revealed that some industries contribute in some way to the BDE-209 contamination found in this area, but the industry focused on the polyamide polymerization is the main responsible.