Author
Listed:
- Zhao Liu
- Zhigang Jiang
- Hongxia Fang
- Chunwang Li
- Aizi Mi
- Jing Chen
- Xiaowei Zhang
- Shaopeng Cui
- Daiqiang Chen
- Xiaoge Ping
- Feng Li
- Chunlin Li
- Songhua Tang
- Zhenhua Luo
- Yan Zeng
- Zhibin Meng
Abstract
A wide array of wildlife species, including many animals, are used in traditional medicines across many medicinal systems, including in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Due to over-exploitation and habitat loss, the populations of many animals commonly used in TCM have declined and are unable to meet market demand. A number of measures have been taken to try to reduce the impact that this large and growing market for TCM may have on wild animal species. Consumer preferences and behavior are known to play an important role in the consumption and protection of wild animals used in traditional medicine, and thus are likely to be an important factor in the success of many of these mechanisms—particularly given the significant percentage of TCMs that are over-the-counter products (access to which is not mediated by practitioners). In this study we conducted questionnaires and designed stated preference experiments embodying different simulation scenarios using a random sample of the population in Beijing to elicit individuals’ knowledge, perceptions and preferences toward wild or farmed animal materials and their substitutes used in traditional Chinese medicine. We found that respondents had a stated preference for wild materials over farm-raised and other alternatives because they believe that the effectiveness of wild-sourced materials is more credible than that of other sources. However, we also found that, although respondents used TCM products, they had a poor understanding of the function or composition of either traditional Chinese medicines or proprietary Chinese medicines (PCM), and paid little attention to the composition of products when making purchasing decisions. Furthermore, awareness of the need for species protection, or “conservation consciousness” was found to play an important role in willingness to accept substitutions for wild animal materials, while traditional animal medicinal materials (TAMs) derived from well-known endangered species, such as bear bile and tiger bone, show relatively higher substitutability. These results suggest that there is still hope for conservation measures which seek to promote a transition to farmed animal, plant and synthetic ingredients and provide clear directions for future social marketing, education and engagement efforts.
Suggested Citation
Zhao Liu & Zhigang Jiang & Hongxia Fang & Chunwang Li & Aizi Mi & Jing Chen & Xiaowei Zhang & Shaopeng Cui & Daiqiang Chen & Xiaoge Ping & Feng Li & Chunlin Li & Songhua Tang & Zhenhua Luo & Yan Zeng , 2016.
"Perception, Price and Preference: Consumption and Protection of Wild Animals Used in Traditional Medicine,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0145901
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145901
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Rubino, Elena C. & Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R., 2018.
"Structuring Legal Trade in Rhino Horn to Incentivize the Participation of South African Private Landowners,"
Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 306-316.
- Frances Goodrum & Samuel Theuri & Eva Mutua & Gemma Carder, 2022.
"The Donkey Skin Trade: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy Change,"
Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(2), pages 304-309, May.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0145901. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.