通过需求保护野生动物减少和供应替代方案

Group 1: Demand-Side Experiment Findings - The probability of ordering wild meat in the treatment group decreased by 31% compared to the control group (3.1% vs. 4.5%) [63] - 59% of participants in both groups used the provided coupons, indicating no significant difference in coupon usage [64] - The treatment video aimed at reducing wild meat consumption did not show statistically significant effects, potentially due to social desirability bias [63] Group 2: Supply-Side Experiment Insights - A 1% decrease in the price of Moambe Chicken is associated with a 0.91% reduction in total wild meat sales, although this relationship is not statistically significant [3] - The supply-side intervention suggests that making alternative protein sources more affordable could help reduce wild meat consumption [44] - The study involved 68 restaurant days, with 11 days featuring a price reduction for Moambe Chicken, allowing for comparative analysis of sales [46] Group 3: Context and Implications - Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has approximately 3,000 wild meat restaurants, selling around 12,540 kg of wild meat annually [12] - The research highlights the need for culturally sensitive interventions that align with local values to effectively reduce wild meat consumption [15] - The findings contribute to understanding how economic incentives and cultural values can be integrated to promote sustainable behaviors in wildlife conservation [15]