Understanding implications of consumer behavior for wildlife farming and sustainable wildlife trade

Unsustainable wildlife trade affects biodiversity and the livelihoods of communities dependent upon those resources. Wildlife farming has been proposed to promote sustainable trade, but characterizing markets and understanding consumer behavior remain neglected but essential steps in the design and evaluation of such operations. We used sea turtle trade in the Cayman Islands, where turtles have been farm raised for human consumption for almost 50 years, as a case study to explore consumer preferences toward wild‐sourced (illegal) and farmed (legal) products and potential conservation implications. Combining methods innovatively (including indirect questioning and choice experiments), we conducted a nationwide trade assessment through in‐person interviews from September to December 2014. Households were randomly selected using disproportionate stratified sampling, and responses were weighted based on district population size. We approached 597 individuals, of which 37 (6.2%) refused to participate. Although 30% of households had consumed turtle in the previous 12 months, the purchase and consumption of wild products was rare (e.g., 64–742 resident households consumed wild turtle meat [i.e., 0.3–3.5% of households] but represented a large threat to wild turtles in the area due to their reduced populations). Differences among groups of consumers were marked, as identified through choice experiments, and price and source of product played important roles in their decisions. Despite the long‐term practice of farming turtles, 13.5% of consumers showed a strong preference for wild products, which demonstrates the limitations of wildlife farming as a single tool for sustainable wildlife trade. By using a combination of indirect questioning, choice experiments, and sales data to investigate demand for wildlife products, we obtained insights about consumer behavior that can be used to develop conservation‐demand‐focused initiatives. Lack of data from long‐term social–ecological assessments hinders the evaluation of and learning from wildlife farming. This information is key to understanding under which conditions different interventions (e.g., bans, wildlife farming, social marketing) are likely to succeed.     

Fishing‐gear restrictions and biomass gains for coral reef fishes in marine protected areas

Considerable empirical evidence supports recovery of reef fish populations with fishery closures. In countries where full exclusion of people from fishing may be perceived as inequitable, fishing‐gear restrictions on nonselective and destructive gears may offer socially relevant management alternatives to build recovery of fish biomass. Even so, few researchers have statistically compared the responses of tropical reef fisheries to alternative management strategies. We tested for the effects of fishery closures and fishing gear restrictions on tropical reef fish biomass at the community and family level. We conducted 1,396 underwater surveys at 617 unique sites across a spatial hierarchy within 22 global marine ecoregions that represented 5 realms. We compared total biomass across local fish assemblages and among 20 families of reef fishes inside marine protected areas (MPAs) with different fishing restrictions: no‐take, hook‐and‐line fishing only, several fishing gears allowed, and sites open to all fishing gears. We included a further category representing remote sites, where fishing pressure is low. As expected, full fishery closures, (i.e., no‐take zones) most benefited community‐ and family‐level fish biomass in comparison with restrictions on fishing gears and openly fished sites. Although biomass responses to fishery closures were highly variable across families, some fishery targets (e.g., Carcharhinidae and Lutjanidae) responded positively to multiple restrictions on fishing gears (i.e., where gears other than hook and line were not permitted). Remoteness also positively affected the response of community‐level fish biomass and many fish families. Our findings provide strong support for the role of fishing restrictions in building recovery of fish biomass and indicate important interactions among fishing‐gear types that affect biomass of a diverse set of reef fish families.     

Evaluation and selection strategy for green supply chain using interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy combinative distance-based assessment

Environment, Development and Sustainability - Environmental deterioration and global warming has created a substantial impact on international companies to incorporate eco-friendly, green supply...     

Environmental management systems in the architectural,engineering and construction sectors: a roadmap to aid the delivery of the sustainable development goals

Environment, Development and Sustainability - Realisation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) will provide improvements to people's lives and longevity of the planet. The architectural,...     

Book reviews

Cost Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change

Per‐Olov Johansson

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993, 232 pp., £13.95

Computerised Environmental Modelling: A Practical Introduction using Excel

J. Hardisty, D. M. Taylor & S. E. Metcalfe

Chichester, Wiley, 1993, 204 pp., £14.95

Keeping Pace with Science and Engineering: Case Studies in Environmental Regulation

Washington DC, US National Academy of Engineering, 1993

World Without End: Economics, Environment and Sustainable Development

D. W. Pearce & J. J. Warford

Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, 440 pp., £35.95     

Interregional burden-sharing of greenhouse gas mitigation in the United States

Emissions trading is anattractive candidate for implementinggreenhouse gas mitigation, because it canpromote both efficiency and equity. Thispaper analyzes the interregional impacts ofalternative allocations of carbon dioxideemission permits within the U.S. Theanalysis is performed with the aid of anonlinear programming model for ten EPARegions and for six alternative permitdistribution formulas. The reason thatvarious alternatives need to be consideredis that there is no universal consensus onthe best definition of equity. Advanceknowledge of absolute and relative regionaleconomic impacts provides policy-makerswith a stronger basis for making thechoice. The analysis yields several usefulresults. First, the simulations indicatethat no matter how permits are allocated,this policy instrument can substantiallyreduce the cost of GHG mitigation for theU.S. in comparison to a system of fixedquotas for each of its regions. Interestingly, the welfare impacts ofseveral of the allocation formulas differonly slightly despite the large differencesin their philosophical underpinnings. Also, the results for some equity criteriadiffer greatly from their application inthe international domain. For example, theEgalitarian (per capita) criterion resultsin the relatively greatest cost burdenbeing incurred by one of the regions of theU.S. with the lowest per capita income.