Characterizing efforts to reduce consumer demand for wildlife products.

Autor: Veríssimo D; Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Zoology Research and Administration Building, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, U.K.; San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, 15600 San Pasqual Valley Road, Escondido, CA, 92027, U.S.A.; Oxford Martin School, Oxford Martin Programme on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, University of Oxford, 34 Broad Street, Oxford, OX1 3BD, U.K., Wan AKY; School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, 135 West Xingang Road, Guangzhou, 510275, China.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology [Conserv Biol] 2019 Jun; Vol. 33 (3), pp. 623-633. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Jan 04.
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13227
Abstrakt: The unsustainable trade in wildlife is a key threat to Earth's biodiversity. Efforts to mitigate this threat have traditionally focused on regulation and enforcement, and there is a growing interest in campaigns to reduce consumer demand for wildlife products. We aimed to characterize these behavior-change campaigns and the evidence of their impacts. We searched peer-reviewed and grey literature repositories and over 200 institutional websites to retrieve information on demand-reduction campaigns. We found 236 campaigns, mainly in the grey literature. Since the 1970s, the number of campaigns increased, although for over 15% a start date could not be found. Asia was the primary focus, although at the national level the United States was where most campaigns took place. Campaigns most often focused on a single species of mammal; other vertebrates groups, with the exception of sharks, received limited attention. Many campaigns focused on broad themes, such as the wildlife trade in general or seafood. Thirty-seven percent of campaigns reported some information on their inputs, 98% on strategies, 70% on outputs, 37% on outcomes (i.e., changes in the target audience), and 9% on impacts (i.e., biological changes or threat reduction). Information on outcomes and impacts was largely anecdotal or based on research designs that are at a high risk of bias, such as pre- and postcampaign comparisons. It was unclear whether demand-reduction campaigns had direct behavioral or biological impacts. The lack of robust impact evaluation made it difficult to draw insights to inform future efforts, a crucial part of effectively addressing complex issues, such as the wildlife trade. If demand-reduction campaigns are to become a cornerstone of the efforts to mitigate the unsustainable trade in wildlife, conservationists need to adopt more rigorous impact evaluation and a more collaborative approach that fosters the sharing of data and insights.
(© 2018 Society for Conservation Biology.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: