Content uploaded by Li Zhang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Li Zhang on Mar 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
COMMENTARY
Wildlife consumption and conservation awareness
in China: a long way to go
Li Zhang •Feng Yin
Received: 8 July 2013 / Revised: 11 April 2014 / Accepted: 16 April 2014 /
Published online: 6 May 2014
!Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract An attitudinal survey on wildlife consumption and conservation awareness was
conducted in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Kunming and Nanning of China recently.
Comparison with the results from a similar survey we did in 2004, after 8 years, the
proportion of respondents who had consumed wildlife was dropped slightly from 31.3 %
down to 29.6 %. It showed that the rates of wildlife consumed as food and as ingredients
for traditional medicines in Guangzhou and Nanning ranked in the top. The consumptions
in these two cities were mostly driven by utilitarian motivation, and mainly for food.
Meanwhile, the rate of consumers taking wildlife as food was declining significantly in
Beijing after 8 years. The results also showed that 52.7 % agreed that wildlife should not
be consumed, which was significantly increased comparison with the survey result of
42.7 % in 2004. In addition, respondents agreed that wildlife could be used significantly
decline from 42.8 to 34.8 %. It’s indicated that wildlife conservation awareness was raised
in China in the past years. We also founded that consumers with higher income and higher
educational background were having higher wildlife consumption rate. It suggested that to
strengthen the law enforcement and to promote the public awareness were keys to reduce
wildlife consumption in China.
Keywords Wildlife consumption !Conservation awareness !
Attitude changes !China
Communicated by David Hawksworth.
L. Zhang (&)!F. Yin
College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
e-mail: asterzhang@bnu.edu.cn
F. Yin
China Wildlife Conservation Association, Beijing 100714, China
123
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381
DOI 10.1007/s10531-014-0708-4
Author's personal copy
Introduction
Throughout China’s history, wildlife has been viewed as an important source of food and
income. From a traditional Chinese perspective, as the same as many other countries,
wildlife are a resource to be exploited, not something to be protected for its intrinsic value
(Zhang et al. 2008). With the development of consumer economy, people’s demand for
wildlife products has grown substantially, and using wild animals as pets, medicine, health
care and food has even become a fashionable lifestyle pursued by some people (Zhou
1997; Morgan 2000; Wang et al. 2001; Nooren and Claridge 2001). The robust market
demand gives a huge drive to money-oriented smugglers. Wildlife trafficking, which
involves excessive capturing and non-sustainable utilization of wild species, poses a severe
threat to many endangered species. A large number of species are now on the verge of
extinction as a result of commercial development (Li and Li 1997). As a conservative
estimate, tens of millions of wild animals are shipped each year regionally and interna-
tionally destined to southern China for food or East and Southeast Asia for use in tradi-
tional medicine (World Wildlife Fund-United Kingdom 2001).
Wildlife trade in China is driven by a multitude of markets including: (1) Food, such as
snake, turtle and tortoise, most of which can be found in the market as live animals or animal
parts; (2) Medicine and tonic products, such as musk, tiger bone, bear bile, or deer antler, most
of which can be found as animal parts in the drug store or supermarket;(3) Crafts and souvenirs,
such as ivory and antelope skull, most of which can be found as animal parts in the craft store,
gift shop or open market; (4) Garments and decoration, such as tiger skin, crocodile skin, and
Tibetan antelope wool, most of which can be found as animal skins in the market orport; and (5)
Pets, like turtles, lizards, and blue peacocks, most of which can be found as live animals in the
market (Li and Zhang 2003; Zhang et al. 2008).
Over recent years, people’s demand for wildlife has grown in most of China’s devel-
oped cities, especially big cities in south China. Eating wildlife as food, purchasing ivory
or big cats’ pelt as crafts and souvenirs, and dressing animal furs have become a fash-
ionable lifestyle and symbol of elite status. The rapid increasing of wildlife consumption
and demands in country are key drives in declining wildlife population of endangered tiger,
elephant, pangolins and other species threatened by poaching and trafficking (Gratwicke
et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2010; Burn et al. 2011).
The research used a questionnaire survey of the publics’ present consumption situation and
protection awareness of wildlife in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou (the capital city of Guang-
dong Province), Kunming (the capital city of Yunnan Province), and Nanning (the capital city
of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region) respectively, for the purpose of launching custom-
ized campaign of reducing wildlife consumption. The questionnaire and sampling methodol-
ogy were the same to a survey we carried out in 2004 (Zhang et al. 2008). Tocompare the results
from these two surveys could provide us the changes and trends of wildlife consumption and
conservation awareness of general public in major cities in China, and we also expect that the
research results could provide valuable reference to make decisions for government and non-
government institutions, thereby, the disorderly consumer market could be well managed and
the illegal wildlife trafficking could be punished.
Methods
The study used a structured questionnaire and face-to-face interviews in Beijing, Shanghai,
Guangzhou, Nanning and Kunming with at least 200 successful samples from each city.
2372 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381
123
Author's personal copy
Sampling
Adopt multi-stage random sampling to perform door-to-door interview (Coleman 1958).
Choose qualified interviewees strictly according to a selecting order of ‘‘city–district–
community-neighborhood committee-family-interviewee.’’ Interviewees (or respondents)
must be 18 years old or above. Interviewees have not participated in any kind of survey
within the last 6 months. Interviewees, family members, or close friends should not be
working or have worked for a conservation group, a market research institute, a market
research department of a corporation, or an advertisement design company, so that we
could secure the respondents from the survey can present general public’s opinion without
additional influences by certain group of expertise. The total sample size of the interview
was 1,065 individuals, including Beijing (N=205), Shanghai (N=211), Guangzhou
(N=215), Kunming (N=222) and Nanning (N=212).
Interview method
Face-to-face questionnaire. Horizon China (http://www.horizon-china.com/cn/index.html),
a professional survey company was contracted to conduct in-home interviews in this
project. Trained and experienced research interviewers read out the questionnaires to the
interviewees and filled out the answers to the questionnaires. Small gifts were distributed to
respondents for their participation in this survey research.
In the survey, four types of consumer behavior among Chinese urban residents were
addressed in the questionnaire: (1) Using wild animals as food, (2) Using medicine or tonic
products containing wildlife ingredients, (3) Wearing ornaments and garments made from
wildlife, and (4) Keeping wildlife as pets. Considering the frequency of these four types of
wildlife consumption might not be identical, we chose the past 12 months period to track
activities of consuming wildlife as food and medicine. We tracked back ornaments and
garments consumption, as well as keeping wildlife as pets in the past 24 months. Wildlife
we defined in this survey referred to those species listed in See Appendix Table 2.
Meanwhile, consumption motivation, consumption venue, consumed species, consumption
frequency, as well as the characteristics of consumer groups were also studied.
Zhang et al. (2008) defined ‘‘Pure Protection’’ (PP), ‘‘Conditional Utilization’’ (CU),
‘‘Pure Utilization’’ (PU) and ‘‘Vague’’ to assess the general attitudes towards wildlife
consumption in China through the questions such as ‘‘Should wildlife consumption be
allowed?’’ and ‘‘What kind of wildlife can be used for consumption?’’ in their survey in
2004. We also use these four categories in this survey to measure people’s attitudinal
changes after 8 years.
Data analysis
We used Crosstable Analysis, Pearson Chi square test (DF =1, Fisher’s exact test, two-
tailed), to compare the difference of percentages that respondents’ attitude toward the four
wildlife consumption categories between 2004 and 2012. The date weighted with valid
respondent numbers from different cities in each survey. Kruskall–Wallis test was used to
test the difference of the data among five cities, and Chi Square test was used to analyze the
difference of the consumption attitudes between respondent groups. The software IBM
SPSS 16.0 (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to conduct the analysis.
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381 2373
123
Author's personal copy
Results
Chinese urban residents’ wildlife consumption attitude
According to all 1,065 respondents from this survey, 561 people (52.7 %) agreed that
wildlife should not be consumed. The percentage was significantly increased comparison
with the survey result (42.7 %) in 2004 (Pearson Chi square test, v
2
=27.171, Fisher’s
exact two tailed P=0.000; see Table 1for details). 371 people (34.8 %) agreed that
wildlife could be used with some certain conditions. The result showed significantly
decline with that from the survey (42.8 %) in 2004. The percentage of people with vague
idea on wildlife consumption or refuse to answer question were significant reduced from
6.6 to 4.2 % (Table 1).
After 8 years, people from different cities showed different changes of their attitude
toward wildlife consumption. In Beijing, the percentage of respondents in the PP group
increased significantly from 48.6 % in 2004 to 88.3 % in 2012; the percentage of CU
declined significantly from 42.6 to 13.7 %; and the percentage of PU dropped significantly
from 4.3 to 0.5 %. In Shanghai and Kunming, both PP group increased significantly from
47.4 and 42.2 % in 2004, to 59.7 and 56.8 % in 2012; PU dropped from 5.7 and 3.7 % in
2004 to 0.5 and 0.5 % in 2012, but there were no significant difference. Although PP
percentage slightly increase from 22.7 to 30.2 % after 8 years, there were no significant
changes in all four cognition types of people’s consumption attitude in Guangzhou, where
had highest rate of CU (54.9 %) and PU (11.4 %), but lowest PP (22.7 %) among other
cities in this survey (See details in Table 1). Nanning was added in research as a major
wildlife trade path between Southeast Asian states and mainland China but it was absent in
the survey in 2004, so its data was not included in this analysis.
315 respondents (29.6 % of total 1,065) claimed they involved in at least one of the four
types of wildlife consumption in the past. It was slightly dropped compared to what we got
in 2004 (31.3 % of total 1,352), but there was no significant difference (Pearson Chi square
test, v
2
=0.821, Fisher’s exact two tailed P=0.374).
Wildlife consumed as food
Twenty-three species, including nine species listed in the ‘‘National List of Wildlife Under
Special Protection’’, were listed in our survey questionnaire as wildlife consumed for food
(See Appendix Table 2). The results showed that 286 of 1,065 respondents (26.9 %) had
previously consumed wildlife of given species; including 4.2 % of interviewees had eaten
the protected animal species. And 83.3 % of respondents in Guangzhou had eaten wildlife
in the past year that was significantly higher than those from the other four cities
(Kruskall–Wallis test, v
2
=116.87, df =4, P=0.00), followed by Nanning (53.3 %),
Kunming (21.6 %), Shanghai (14.2 %) and Beijing (4.9 %). The rate of consuming
wildlife as food in Beijing declined significantly from 19.1 % in 2004 to 4.9 % in 2012
(Pearson v
2
=22.297, Fisher’s exact P=0.000). But the rate was increased in Guangzhou
from 44.2 % to the current 83.3 % (Pearson v
2
=73.106, Fisher’s exact P=0.000).
There were no significant changes in Shanghai (Pearson v
2
=0.072, Fisher’s exact
P=0.818) and Kunming after 8 years (Pearson v
2
=0.811, Fisher’s exact P=0.436).
Of the species listed in See Appendix Table 2, wild quails (10.2 % of respondents) and
snakes (10.0 %) were most commonly consumed as food, followed by sparrows (6.3 %),
frogs (5.9 %) and ducks (5.2 %).
2374 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381
123
Author's personal copy
Table 1 Analysis of Chinese urban residents’ attitude toward wildlife consumption in different cities
Cognition type Year Beijing Shanghai Guangzhou Kunming Total
Number of
respondents
% Number of
respondents
% Number of
respondents
% Number of
respondents
% Number of
respondents
%
Pure Protection 2004 191 48.6 237 47.4 53 22.7 34 42.2 577 42.7
2012 181 88.3 126 59.7 65 30.2 126 56.8 561 52.7
Pearson Chi square test
(Fisher’s exact)
*** * ns * ***
Conditional Utilization 2004 167 42.6 196 39.3 128 54.9 38 47.8 578 42.8
2012 28 13.7 68 32.2 118 54.9 78 35.1 371 34.8
Pearson Chi Square test
(Fisher’s exact)
*** ns ns * ***
Pure utilization 2004 17 4.3 28 5.7 27 11.4 3 3.7 92 6.9
2012 1 0.5 1 0.5 20 9.3 1 0.5 62 5.8
Pearson Chi square test
(Fisher’s exact)
** * ns ns ns
Vague 2004 17 4.3 38 7.7 26 11.0 5 6.3 88 6.6
2012 3 1.5 5 2.4 19 8.8 11 5.0 45 4.2
Pearson Chi square test
(Fisher’s exact)
ns * ns ns *
Total 2004 393 500 233 79 1,335
2012 205 211 215 222 1,039
(1) The valid sample for this questionnaire was 1,039 (the total survey sample was 1,065 in this study); (2) Nanning was not in the survey in 2004 but added in this survey as a
major wildlife trade path between Southeast Asian states and mainland China, so the data was not included in this comparison. (3) Cross Table Pearson Chi square test
(Fisher’s exact) was used to compare data from the two surveys in 2004 and 2012, df =1
ns no significance
*** P\0.001, ** P\0.01, * P\0.05 (two-tailed)
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381 2375
123
Author's personal copy
A comparison of gender, age, educational level, and income reveals that being young
(18–29 year-old, 36 %), higher educated (college and above, 42.5 %) and white-collar
(monthly salary above $650 USD, 39.5 %) were prominent characteristics of wildlife
consumers from five China cities in this survey (Fig. 1).
Average frequency of eating wildlife among five cities’ respondents was 2.7 times per
year. 51.3 % of respondents consumed wildlife as food for 1–2 times per year, 38.1 % of
respondents ate 3–5 times each year. On average, the ratio of respondents eating wild
animals in Beijing was low, but those consumers’ consumption frequency was high.
62.5 % of consumers in Beijing consumed wild animals for 3–5 times each year. Con-
sumption frequencies in Shanghai and Kunming were relatively low. Most consumers in
Shanghai, Kunming, and Guangzhou consumed wild animals 1–2 times each year; 48.8 %
of consumer respondents in Nanning ate wild animals more than five times each year.
Good taste (45.7 %), ‘‘for fun’’ (38.6 %) and better nutrition (34.7 %) were the top three
reasons for consumers eating wildlife. 26.3 % of wild animal eaters were passive con-
sumers consuming wildlife as food at social occasions but no for their taste or nutrition.
Wildlife consumed as ingredients for traditional medicines
This survey listed 18 species of wild animals and 4 species of wild plants. 9.6 % of
interviewees admitted they had previously consumed listed animals and plants as medicine
or health products at least once. Ratio of respondents who had never taken traditional
medicines or health products containing wild plants and wild animal parts was 90.4 %.
31.2 % of respondents in Guangzhou had used traditional medicines and health products
containing wild plants and animals as ingredients in the past year. This rate/proportion
reached 23.6 % in Nanning, and it was 12.5 % in Kunming. Consumption rate in Beijing
was 1.5 % and Shanghai was 2.8 %.
Fig. 1 A comparison of the percentage of wildlife consumers’ gender, age, educational level, and income
reveals that being young, with higher education and higher income were prominent characteristics of
wildlife consumers, Chi square test, df =1, two-tailed, ***P\0.001, **P\0.01, *P\0.05 (two-tailed),
ns no significance (N=315)
2376 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381
123
Author's personal copy
For the consumer groups, compared with respondents with medium or low income and
educational degrees, people with high income and educational degrees had higher con-
sumption rate of wild animals and plants (Fig. 2). Consumers in elder age groups were less
likely to consume medicines and health products containing wild animals and plants as
ingredients, (22.1 % above 40 year-old, 35.2 % between 18 and 40 year-old).
Wildlife used for ornaments or clothing
20 kinds of ornaments and clothing were listed in the questionnaire (See Appendix
Table 2). Only 31 people (2.9 % of all respondents) admitted that they had used at least
one kind of the products during the past 2 years. Consumption rate for people with high
Fig. 2 High percentage of wildlife consumers were those with higher education and higher income groups
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381 2377
123
Author's personal copy
educational level was higher than consumption rates for people with middle and low
educational levels. Similarly, the consumption rate tended to be higher for consumers with
high income (Fig. 2).
Among the 20 categories of animal ornaments and clothing, products made of coral, seal
pelt, ivory and otter skin were the top four categories most frequently consumed. Categories of
products tended to be more diversified for consumers with mid to high levels of education and
income. In addition, the average amount of wildlife products consumed as ornament or clothing
in the past 2 years was 2.05 times per person among those 31 consumer respondents; 73.9 % of
them purchased wildlife ornament or clothing once to twice per year, 21.5 % consumed 3–5
times a year, and 2.3 % consumed more than five times a year.
Wildlife kept as pets
3.9 % of respondents had kept wild animals among the 28 listed group species as pets in past
2 years. People who never kept wildlife as pet took up the percentage of 96.1 %. Chelonians
were the most popular pet. Chelonians and skilled birds were pet species popular in Beijing and
Shanghai, while people in Guangdong, Nanning and Kunming kept more species as pet. Wild
birds were particularly favorable in Kunming. The rate of raising wild animals in Nanning
(12.3 %) was prominently higher than those of other 4 cities (4.2 % on average).
On average, each pet keeper had 1.95 pets in the past 2 years. 80.2 % of those pet
keepers raised 1–2 pets at home, and 2.1 % of them raised more than five wildlife pets. For
residents who kept wild animals in the past 2 years, pet market (51.8 %) was the primary
resource to get a pet, followed by gifts or adoption (30.9 %). The third most popular
approach was purchasing from less regulated mobile stalls (21.7 %).
Raising wild animals could bring fun and joy to one’s life was the major reason that consumers
kept wildlife as pets (56.2 %); the next reason was to admire the animals’ special features
(41.1 %); and 11.2 % of wild animal keepers considered raising them as a symbol of fashion.
Consumption frequency
We referred to people directly involved in eating, using, wearing, or raising wild animals
as ‘‘actual consumers.’’ 315 respondents of the survey, or 29.6 % of the total respondents,
were involved in at least one of the mentioned consumption behaviors/means. We used
‘‘frequency of consumption’’ as guideline to classify consumers into degrees of con-
sumption. In this survey, there were 303 out of 315 interviewees who provided valid
answers to the question of consumption frequency.
We classified each kind of wildlife consumption behavior (into different categories) and
assigned them with numeric values. Consumption of once to twice a year received one
point, three to five times a year earned two points, over five times a year got three points, so
that the total numeric value of an actual consumer reflected his or her consumption
behavior. Consumers ended up with a score ranging from 1 to 12. We classified 303 valid
samples into the following categories: (A) respondents with 1–2 points were light con-
sumers; (B) 3–4 points were mild consumers; and (C) five points and above were heavy
consumers. Among the 303 actual consumers, about 60 % (63.7 %) were light consumers,
followed by 27.5 % mild consumers and 8.8 % heavy consumers.
For those respondents refused to consume wild animal mainly for their wildlife pro-
tection awareness (46.6 %). Health and infectious disease concerns (29.0 %), and lack of
access (13.9 %) were also significant factors that lead people did not consume wildlife
products.
2378 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381
123
Author's personal copy
Discussion
Over recent years, people’s demand for wildlife had grown in most of China’s developed
cities, especially big cities in south China. Eating wildlife as food, purchasing ivory or big
cats’ pelt as crafts and souvenirs, and dressing animal furs had become a fashionable
lifestyle and symbol of elite status. The rapid increasing of wildlife consumption and
demands in country, which became the key driver to the declining of wildlife population of
endangered Asian big cats (Dinerstein et al. 2007; Gratwicke et al. 2008), African ele-
phants (Burn et al. 2011; Maisels et al. 2013), pangolins (Srikosamatara et al. 1992; Zhang
et al. 2010) and other species threatened by illegal killing and trafficking.
In our previous research conducted in 2004, the percentage of respondents who had
consumed wildlife was 31.1 % (Zhang et al. 2008). Now after 8 years, the proportion
declined to 29.6 %, but there was no significant reduction of wildlife consumption in the
country (Pearson Chi square test, v
2
=0.067, df =1, Fisher’s exact P=0.796). This
result indicated that the size of wildlife consumption group was not yet under control, and
the problem of wildlife consumption in China was still worrying.
The consumption rate of Guangzhou ranked on the top among five cities in this survey. In
addition, the species consumed were being diversified and consumption of wildlife was
becoming more common in Guangzhou and Nanning. The two cities’ consumption was driven
mostly by utilitarian motivation, and the main consumption was eating wildlife as food.
Wildlife consumers tended to be younger in age. Consumers with higher income and higher
educational background had higher wildlife consumption rates, and formed the main consumer
group of wild animals.They preferred ‘‘selective protection’’, ‘‘protecting according to the law’’
and ‘‘protection of only purely wild animals’’ in terms of their consumption attitude.
Compared to the situation in 2004, the rate of consumers consuming wildlife as food in
Beijing and Shanghai was conspicuously declining. Beijing’s wildlife consumption rated in
all four means of consumption was the lowest among the five cities. Residents of Beijing
and Shanghai showed significantly stronger support to wildlife protection through ‘‘pro-
tecting all wildlife’’ (or ‘‘complete protection of wildlife’’) and refraining from eating,
using, or keeping wildlife as pets (Table 1). These encouraging findings could due to the
successful and continuous public awareness education campaigns led by various govern-
mental agencies and civil society during the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and the Shanghai
World Expo in 2010.
Although ‘‘protection of all wildlife’’ was still agreed on by the majority, the rate of
people agreeing with ‘‘selective protection’’ was rising and becoming the top protection
ideology of the actual wildlife consumer group. ‘‘Protection according to law’’ was agreed
upon among types of selective protection. However, the actual consumers had very limited
knowledge of related laws, so consumption of legally protected wildlife still existed. The
gap between protection attitude and actual consumption behavior needed to be solved/
diminished by spreading legal knowledge.
Acknowledgments We greatly appreciated the financial support from Freeland Foundation to Conser-
vation International, which was a sub-grant from USAID funded Asia Regional Response to Endangered
Species Trafficking (ARREST) program. We thanked to the Horizon Key Research and its staff who took
the field survey in five cities. We were grateful to Miss Jia Qi, Miss Siwaporn Tee, Mr. Kun Tian and Miss
Rachel Lee for their comments on the survey report and this manuscript.
Appendix
See Table 2.
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381 2379
123
Author's personal copy
Table 2 Species listed in the questionnaire to question the consumption of wildlife products as food, traditional medicines, ornaments or clothing, and kept as pets
Consumed as food Consumed as medicine Consumed for ornaments or clothing Kept as pets
Shark (general shark species)
Chinese sturgeon (Acipenser
sinensis)I
Giant salamander (Andrias
davidianus) II
Frogs (general frog species)
Snakes (general snake species)
Chelonians (general turtle
species)
Yangtze alligator (Aligator
sinensis)I
Monitor lizards (Varanus)I
Wild duck (general duck
species)
Turtle dove (Streptopelia
turtur)
Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus)
Common quail (Coturnix
coturnix)
Ostrich (Struthio camelus)
Sparrows (Passer,Emberiza)
Bamboo rat (Rhizomys sinensis)
Hare (Lepus)
Mongolian gazelle (Procapra
gutturosa) II
Wild boar (Sus scrofa)
Roe deer (Capreolus pygargus)
II
Sika deer (Cervus nippon)I
Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus)
II Pangolin (Manis) II
Masked palm civet (Paguma
larvata)
Seahorse (all seahorse species in
general)
Toad venom (Bufo gargarizans)
Snake gall (wild snake species in
general)
Snake oil (wild snake species in general)
Giant gecko (Gekko gecko) II Turtle
shell (turtle species in general)
Rhino horn (Dicerorhinus)I
Antelope horn (Saiga tatarica)I
Musk (Noschus)I
Deer penis (Cervus)
Deer blood (Cervus)
Pilose antler (Cervus)
Pangolin scales (Manis) II
Bear gall (Ursus) II
Tiger bone (Panthera tigris) I Leopard
bone (Panthera)I
Fur seal oil (Arctocephalus)
Elephant skin (Elephas maximus)I
Chinese yew (Taxus chinensis)I
Lignum Santali Albi (Santalum album)
Caterpillar fungus (Cordyceps sinensis)
II
Dendrobium (Dendrobium) I or II
Coral (Coral species in general)
Specimen of butterfly (species unknown)
Specimen of peacock feather (Pavo)
Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) II
Python skin (Python molurus) I Crocodile skin
(species unknown)
Ivory (loxodonta or Elephas maximus)I
Specimen of argali’s head (Ovis ammon) II
Shahtoosh (Pantholops hodgsoni)I
Sika deer skin (Cervus nippon)I
Muntjac skin (Muntiacus)
Specimen of deer antler (species unknown)
Specimen of rhino horn (Dicerorhinus)I
Fur of seal (species unknown)
Fur of marten (Martes)
Fur of fax (species unknown)
Fur of raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides)
Otter skin (Lutra or Aonyx) II
Lynx skin (Felis lynx) II
Tiger skin (Panthera tigris)I
Salamanders (species in common trade)
Lizards (species in common trade)
Chelonian (species in common trade) I and II
Red-billed leiothrix (Leiothrix lutea)
Ornamental pigeons (Columba)
Oriental Dollarbird (Eurystomus orientalis)
Asian Paradise Flycatcher (Terpsiphone paradise)
Blue-and-white Flycatcher (Cyanoptila cyanomelana)
Red-billed Blue Magpie (Urocissa erythrorhyncha)
Indian pitta (Pitta brachyuran)
Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicas)
Parrot (Agapornis,Psittacula, and Cacatua)
Crested mynah (Acridotheres cristatellus)
Hill mynah (Gracula religiosa) Red-breasted parakeet
(Psittacula alexandri) II
Japanese Grosbeak (Eophona personata)
Siberian Blue Robin (Luscinia cyane)
White-rumped Munia (Lonchura striata)
Vinous-throated Parrotbill (Paradoxornis webbianus)
Leucodioptron
Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis) Pallas’s Leaf Warbler
(Phylloscopus proregulus)
Siberian Rubythroat (Luscinia calliope)
Alauda
Cettia spp.
Hawks and owls (species in common trade) I or II Macaques
(Macaca) II Loris (Loris or Nycticebus)I
Ifirst class protected species, II second class protected species (China Wildlife Protection Law)
2380 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381
123
Author's personal copy
References
Burn R, Underwood F, Blanc J (2011) Global trends and factors associated with the illegal killing of
elephants: a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of carcass encounter data. PLoS ONE 6(6):e20619
Coleman JS (1958) Relational analysis: the study of social organizations with survey methods. Hum Organ
17(4):28–36
Dinerstein E, Loucks C, Wikramanayake E et al (2007) The fate of wild tiger. Bioscience 57(6):508–514
Gratwicke B, Mills J, Dutton A, Gabriel G, Long B, Seidensticker G, Wright B, Wang Y, Zhang L (2008)
Attitudes toward consumption and conservation of tigers in China. PLoS ONE 3(7):e2544
Li Y, Li D (1997) Survey of cross-border trade in live wildlife between China and Vietnam. Prot China’s
Biodivers 1:159–175
Li C, Zhang L (2003) Guide book on wildlife import and export management. China Forestry Publishing
House, Beijing
Maisels F, Strindberg S, Blake S, Wittemyer G et al (2013) Devastating decline of forest elephants in
Central Africa. PLoS ONE 8(3):e59469
Morgan D (2000) Chinese medicine raising wildlife concerns. Reuters News Agency. Available from http://
dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001217/sc/environment_tcm_dc_1.html. Accessed 17 Dec 2000
Nooren H, Claridge G (2001) Wildlife trade in Laos: the end of the game. Netherlands Committee for IUCN,
Amsterdam
Srikosamatara S, Siripholdej B, Suteethorn V (1992) Wildlife trade in Lao PDR and between Lao PDR and
Thailand. Nat Hist Bull Siam Soc 40:1–47
Wang Z, Wu D, Chen H (2001) Preliminary study of border trade in wildlife in Yunnan. Prot China’s
Biodivers 2:158–167
World Wildlife Fund-United Kingdom (2001) Souvenir alert highlights deadly trade in endangered species.
http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/scotland/n_0000000409.asp. Accessed 29 May 2006
Zhang L, Hua N, Sun S (2008) Wildlife trade, consumption and conservation awareness in southwest China.
Biodivers Conserv 17(6):1493–1516
Zhang L, Li Q, Sun G, Luo S (2010) Population and conservation status of pangolins in China. Chin Bull
Biol 45(9):1–4
Zhou F (1997) Captive breeding of economic wildlife. Guangxi Science and Technology Press, Nanning
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:2371–2381 2381
123
Author's personal copy
