This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/cobi.13846.

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.

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.

Conflicts between the interests of biodiversity conservation and other human activities pose a major threat to natural ecosystems and human well-being, yet few methods exist to quantify their intensity and model their dynamics. We develop a categorization of conflict intensity based on the curve of conflict, a model originally used to track the escalation and deescalation of armed conflicts. Our categorization assigns six intensity levels reflecting the discourse and actions of stakeholders involved in a given conflict, from coexistence or collaboration to physical violence. Using a range of case studies, we demonstrate the value of our approach in quantifying conflict trends, estimating transition probabilities between conflict stages, and modeling conflict intensity as a function of relevant covariates. By taking an evidence-based approach to quantifying stakeholder behavior, the proposed framework allows for a better understanding of the drivers of conservation conflict development across a diverse range of socioecological scenarios.

Structures submerged in the sea by humans over millennia provide hard and longstanding evidence of anthropogenic influence in the marine environment. Many of these human-made reefs (HMRs) may provide opportunities for conservation despite having been created for different purposes such as fishing or tourism. In the middle of controversy around the costs and benefits of HMRs, a broad analysis of biodiversity and social values is necessary to assess conservation potential. This requires reframing HMRs as social–ecological systems, moving beyond comparisons with natural coral or rocky reefs to consider their roles as ecosystems in their own right; creating frameworks to track their type, number, size, units, location, characteristics, origins, social uses, and associated biodiversity locally and worldwide; and applying systematic assessment of conservation benefits in relation to stated conservation intentions. This integrative approach can catalyze learning, identify conservation opportunities, and inform positive management of HMRs into the future.