A new study led by Laura Thomas-Walters, who is studying for a PhD in Biodiversity Management at the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), has created a framework for understanding the motivational drivers for the consumption of illegal wildlife products, to help inform the development of more effective interventions.
Illegal wildlife trade is one of the most lucrative international crimes and impacts not only threatened and endangered species, but also has a negative impact on local livelihoods and ecosystems. The dominant approach to combatting this market is to focus on the supply: however, there is growing understanding within conservation that it is important to also consider the demand side of the trade, the consumption of illegal wildlife products. Conservationists aim to either stop consumption through education and social marketing or offer sustainable alternatives.
This study focused on addressing the key knowledge gaps surrounding consumer motivation, because understanding the underlying reasons driving people to consume these products, as well as the cultural and societal context within which they are consumed, can help tailor interventions to be more effective. Laura and her team developed a typology of the common motivations for end consumers, for the use of practitioners and researchers.
The five main, motivational categories, each with sub-categories, are:
- Experiential – recreational, sensory
- Social – reputational, social pressure, relational
- Functional – nutritional, medicinal, fuel, labour, housing/craftmanship
- Financial – immediate profit, future profit
- Spiritual – spiritual well-being, religious, ritualistic
However, the study also makes sure to comment that factors such as price, availability and habit can affect usage as well, but often these factors still have underlying motivations. For example, a consumer may have to purchase a lion bone rather than a tiger bone due to price, but the driver for purchase was for the traditional remedy the bone offers.
When applying this framework, conservationists must remember three key points. First, that a consumer could be driven by multiple motivations. Second, that the focus must be on the end users that are driving demand. And, third, recognising that motivation is only one factor that can instigate behaviour change: in some cases it may be more effective to use structural or legal interventions.
This framework was designed to ensure that a ‘one-size fits all’ approach is not taken, but instead more focused and efficient interventions are utilised. The study highlighted that, in situations where conservationists are undertaking consumer research, there should be close collaboration with local actors, as the difference in practices and beliefs could cause researcher and practitioner bias.
Laura Thomas-Walters concludes, “Our analysis provides a broad, globally applicable framework that can underpin the development of a common language for wildlife-trade research, making it easier for practitioners and researchers to identify relevant previous studies that could inform potential future interventions. Thus, it is an important step toward producing a more systematic approach to designing effective demand-reduction interventions.”
The paper, Motivations for the use and consumption of wildlife products, by Laura Thomas-Walters, Amy Hinsley, Daniel Bergin, Gayle Burgess, Hunter Doughty, Sara Eppel, Douglas MacFarlane, Wander Mejier, Tien Ming Lee, Jacob Phelps, Robert J. Smith, Anita K . Y. Wan and Diogo Veríssimo is published in Conservation Biology. (DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13578).