Taking a more nuanced look at behavior change for demand reduction in the illegal wildlife trade

Abstract

The illegal wildlife trade threatens the future of many species, and undermines economies and livelihoods. Conservationists have largely responded with supply‐side interventions, such as antipoaching patrols, but these often fail to stem the tide of wildlife trafficking. There is now increasing interest in demand‐side interventions, which seek to lower poaching pressure on sought‐after species by reducing consumer's desire for, and purchase of, specific wildlife products. Individual behavior change approaches, from environmental education to social marketing, have been widely advocated by academics, practitioners, and policy makers. However, this is an emerging field and we lack the breadth of evidence needed to understand and predict the potential outcomes of demand reduction interventions. To help us gain broader insights, we examine the literature from public health and international development on the effectiveness of behavior change interventions, and critique the current conceptualization of strategies for reducing consumer demand in the illegal wildlife trade. We show that behavior change is difficult to achieve and interventions may have unintended and undesirable consequences because of unaddressed systemic, cultural and environmental drivers, and limited resourcing. We conclude that some sections of the conservation community are advocating a shift from one reductionist approach based on limiting supply, to another based on limiting demand, and argue that conservationists should learn from the public health and international development projects that have integrated systems thinking. By accounting for the multiple interactions and synergies between different factors in the wildlife trade, we can develop more strategic approaches to protecting endangered species.

Opportunistic or Non-Random Wildlife Crime? Attractiveness Rather Than Abundance in the Wild Leads to Selective Parrot Poaching

“…In fact, seized birds are often returned to the wild to reduce costs and to create space for newly confiscated individuals, in the absence of reintroduction programs [35]. Thus, seizures should focus on overexploited species and should be combined with well-designed awareness campaigns [90,91] to reduce demand. On the other hand, captive breeding of exotic parrots to supply the demand should also be promoted, but under strict sanitary control, as exotic parrots can carry pathogens (e.g., [92]) that could spread and negatively impact native populations.…”

Korean ‘Housewives’ and ‘Hipsters’ Are Not Driving a New Illicit Plant Trade: Complicating Consumer Motivations Behind an Emergent Wildlife Trade in Dudleya farinosa

“…Understanding the complexities and motivations of parties engaged in the purchasing of illicitly traded wildlife products is essential for informing effective, socially just and responsible interventions to effectively curtail IWT and promote sustainable wildlife trades (Wyatt, 2009;Duffy et al, 2016;Doughty et al, 2019;Thomas-Walters et al, 2020b). Echoing the sentiments of others, research into the underpinnings of the illicit trade in D. farinosa speaks to the greater need for deeper interdisciplinary conversation and engagement between criminologists, conservation scientists, geographers and anthropologists in IWT-related research in order to inform more sustainable plant trades (Blair et al, 2017;Boratto and Gibbs, 2019;Gore et al, 2019).…”

Online trade in wildlife and the lack of response to COVID-19

“…This reaction has been best illustrated with respect to COVID-19 through the commitment to health and hygiene initiatives ( Kirk and Rifkin, 2020 ); it appears possible that this is occurring within wildlife trade communities as well. Campaigns aimed at reducing wildlife trade deal with a complex and uncertain scenario, in which interventions must be context-specific to reduce the impact of psychological pushbacks and increase the likelihood of success ( Esmail et al, 2020 ; Thomas-Walters et al, 2020 ). The majority of interventions aimed at reducing wildlife demand still do not result in major behavior changes (e.g.…”

“… Chaves et al, 2018 ). For instance, only 8% of the target audience changed people's behavior due to the mediated health campaigns ( Thomas-Walters et al, 2020 ).…”