Abstract
AbstractThe 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.
Highlights
The illegal wildlife trade is a major global problem that causes wildlife declines and undermines economies and livelihoods ('t Sas-Rolfes et al, 2019)
We argue for integrating systems thinking into demand reduction interventions to reduce the potential for unintended consequences and increase the likelihood of sustained impact, as well as emphasizing again the need to temper our expectations of demand reduction interventions
We have argued above that examples from the health and development sectors can provide insights into the likely effectiveness of demand reduction campaigns to tackle the illegal wildlife trade
Summary
The illegal wildlife trade is a major global problem that causes wildlife declines and undermines economies and livelihoods ('t Sas-Rolfes et al, 2019). This involves understanding consumer motivations and the key drivers of demand for wildlife products to more effectively alter people's behavior (Phelps, Biggs, & Webb, 2016; Thomas-Walters, 2017). We highlight how achieving behavior change can be slow and expensive, and suggest that much of the current discussion in policy circles about demand reduction for illegal wildlife products may be overly optimistic.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
