Conserving wildlife through demand reduction and supply alternatives: Two experiments in restaurants in Kinshasa

High aggregate levels of wildlife consumption in cities in Central Africa highlight the need for solutions that balance wildlife protection, local livelihoods and the relational values between people and nature.

This study explores the impacts of demand- and supply-side interventions on wild meat consumption through two randomized control trials in restaurants in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo: a demand-side experiment and a supply-side experiment.

In the demand-side experiment, 544 subjects were given a coupon to their restaurant of choice and randomly assigned to view either a treatment video discouraging wild meat consumption or a control video unrelated to wild meat. Treatment group subjects are 31% less likely to order wild meat than control group subjects, though this difference is not statistically significant and may be affected by social desirability bias.

In the supply-side experiment, we assessed the effect of randomly reducing the price of Moambe Chicken, a potential alternative to wild meat, on restaurants' total wild meat sales. We estimate that a 1% reduction in the price of Moambe Chicken reduces total wild meat sales by 0.91%. Although this relationship is not statistically significant, it suggests that interventions increasing the availability and affordability of alternatives to wild meat may reduce wild meat consumption.

Our experiments advance previous research by utilizing actual consumption data rather than self-reported data, assessing social desirability bias and pre-registering all statistical specifications to enhance research integrity.

Policy implications. We provide preliminary evidence suggesting that both wild meat demand reduction through social marketing campaigns and supply expansion via affordable alternatives could contribute to effective wildlife conservation in Central Africa.