Predictors of support for biodiversity loss countermeasure and bushmeat consumption among Vietnamese urban residents

Abstract

AbstractBiodiversity loss is happening at an unprecedented rate, especially in countries like Vietnam, with rich biodiversity and a high population growth rate. One of the main causes of biodiversity loss in Vietnam is the unsustainable bushmeat consumption rate in urban areas. To help mitigate the demand for bushmeat, this study aims to examine the associations between biodiversity loss perceptions, perception toward the prohibition of illegal wildlife consumption, and bushmeat consumption behaviors among urban residents in Vietnam. The investigation employed the Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF)—an analytical framework that combines the strengths of the mindsponge mechanism and Bayesian inference to facilitate investigation into psychological and behavioral issues—on 535 respondents from urban areas across Vietnam (mostly in the two urban centers of Ho Chi Minh and Hanoi). We found that people perceiving environmental degradation, and losses of economic growth, nature‐based recreation opportunities, health, and knowledge as consequences of biodiversity loss were more likely to support the prohibition of illegal wildlife consumption. Although urban residents tended to consume bushmeat less frequently if they perceived losses of economic growth and knowledge as consequences of biodiversity loss, the perception of environmental degradation had an opposite effect on the behavior. Additionally, people consuming bushmeat frequently and supporting the biodiversity loss preventive measure seemed to share similar features: high income and educational levels. These paradoxical results hint at the cultural additivity phenomenon—the willingness to incorporate into one's mind the new values that might or might not logically contradict their existing core cultural values—and its influence on psychology and behavior among Vietnamese urban residents. Given the influence of cultural additivity, it is recommended to put tougher measures (e.g., financial punishment) into perspective so that urban people can recognize the high “cost” of bushmeat consumption and change their perceptions and behaviors accordingly. Apart from that, social marketing, demarketing, or educational campaigns should convey knowledge and information that can help receivers relate biodiversity loss and bushmeat consumption to their subjective cost‐benefit judgments rather than the rarity of the species to avoid triggering an anthropogenic Allee effect—for example, emphasizing the penalty for consuming bushmeat and negative impacts of biodiversity loss on humans in targeted campaigns (e.g., losses of economic growth and knowledge).