Accepted author manuscript, 13.6 MB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Reducing Demand for Overexploited Wildlife Products
T2 - Lessons from Systematic Reviews from Outside Conservation Science
AU - MacFarlane, Douglas
AU - Hurlstone, Mark
AU - Ecker, Ullrich
AU - Ferraro, Paul
AU - van der Linden, Sander
AU - Wan, Anita
AU - Verissimo, Diogo
AU - Burgess, Gayle
AU - Chen, Frederick
AU - Hollands, Gareth
AU - Sutherland, William
PY - 2022/3/31
Y1 - 2022/3/31
N2 - Conservationists have long sought to reduce consumer demand for products from overexploited wildlife species. Health practitioners have also begun calling for reductions in the wildlife trade to reduce pandemic risk. Most wildlife-focused demand reduction campaigns have lacked rigorous evaluations and thus their impacts remain unknown. There is thus an urgent need to review the evidence from beyond conservation science to inform future demand-reduction efforts. We searched for systematic reviews of interventions that aimed to reduce consumer demand for products that are harmful (e.g., cigarettes and illicit drugs). In total, 41 systematic reviews were assessed, and their data extracted. Mass-media campaigns and incentive programs were, on average, ineffective. While advertising bans, social marketing, and location bans were promising, there was insufficient robust evidence to draw firm conclusions. In contrast, the evidence for the effectiveness of norm appeals and risk warnings was stronger, with some caveats.
AB - Conservationists have long sought to reduce consumer demand for products from overexploited wildlife species. Health practitioners have also begun calling for reductions in the wildlife trade to reduce pandemic risk. Most wildlife-focused demand reduction campaigns have lacked rigorous evaluations and thus their impacts remain unknown. There is thus an urgent need to review the evidence from beyond conservation science to inform future demand-reduction efforts. We searched for systematic reviews of interventions that aimed to reduce consumer demand for products that are harmful (e.g., cigarettes and illicit drugs). In total, 41 systematic reviews were assessed, and their data extracted. Mass-media campaigns and incentive programs were, on average, ineffective. While advertising bans, social marketing, and location bans were promising, there was insufficient robust evidence to draw firm conclusions. In contrast, the evidence for the effectiveness of norm appeals and risk warnings was stronger, with some caveats.
KW - Behavior change
KW - Biodiversity conservation
KW - Demand reduction
KW - Evidence-based interventions
KW - Fear appeals
KW - Illegal wildlife trade
KW - Mass-media campaigns
KW - Overconsumption
KW - Social norms
KW - Zoonoses
U2 - 10.1111/csp2.627
DO - 10.1111/csp2.627
M3 - Journal article
VL - 4
JO - Conservation Science and Practice
JF - Conservation Science and Practice
IS - 3
M1 - e627
ER -