Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12160
DC FieldValue
dc.titleA framework for assessing supply-side wildlife conservation
dc.contributor.authorPhelps, J.
dc.contributor.authorCarrasco, L.R.
dc.contributor.authorWebb, E.L.
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-27T08:19:05Z
dc.date.available2014-10-27T08:19:05Z
dc.date.issued2014-02
dc.identifier.citationPhelps, J., Carrasco, L.R., Webb, E.L. (2014-02). A framework for assessing supply-side wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology 28 (1) : 244-257. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12160
dc.identifier.issn08888892
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/99832
dc.description.abstractMarket-based, supply-side interventions such as domestication, cultivation, and wildlife farming have been proposed as legal substitutes for wild-collected plants and animals in the marketplace. Based on the literature, we devised a list of the conditions under which supply-side interventions may yield positive conservation outcomes. We applied it to the trade of the orchid Rhynchostylis gigantea, a protected ornamental plant. We conducted a survey of R. gigantea at Jatujak Market in Bangkok, Thailand. Farmed (legal) and wild (illegal, protected) specimens of R. gigantea were sold side-by-side at market. These results suggest farmed specimens are not being substituted for wild plants in the marketplace. For any given set of physical plant characteristics (size, condition, flowers), the origin of the plants (wild vs. farmed) did not affect price. For all price classes, farmed plants were of superior quality to wild-collected plants on the basis of most physical variables. These results suggest wild and farmed specimens represent parallel markets and may not be substitutable goods. Our results with R. gigantea highlight a range of explanations for why supply-side interventions may lack effectiveness, for example, consumer preferences for wild-collected products and low financial incentives for farming. Our results suggest that market-based conservation strategies may not be effective by themselves and may be best utilized as supplements to regulation and education. This approach represents a broad, multidisciplinary evaluation of supply-side interventions that can be applied to other plant and animal species. © 2013 Society for Conservation Biology.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12160
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectCITES
dc.subjectCultivation
dc.subjectDomestication
dc.subjectHarvest
dc.subjectNontimber forest products
dc.subjectNTFP
dc.subjectOrchid
dc.subjectTrade
dc.subjectWildlife farming
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentBIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
dc.description.doi10.1111/cobi.12160
dc.description.sourcetitleConservation Biology
dc.description.volume28
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.page244-257
dc.description.codenCBIOE
dc.identifier.isiut000330265900025
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

40
checked on Nov 23, 2020

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

38
checked on Nov 23, 2020

Page view(s)

82
checked on Nov 22, 2020

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.