ArticleScience advances2021
International socioeconomic inequality drives trade patterns in the global wildlife market.
Article in Science advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- The link between colorfulness and extinction risk across the world's passerine birds.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Navigating the challenges in implementing financial incentives for behavior change at the intersection of human, animal, and ecosystem health: a case study.Science in One Health · 2026Review
- A web-based tool for rapid and accurate craniometric differentiation of clouded leopard species.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Chains of Commerce: A Comprehensive Review of Animal Welfare Impacts in the International Wildlife Trade.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Pathogens and planetary change.Nature reviews. Biodiversity · 2025Article
- The magnitude of legal wildlife trade and implications for species survival.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Mitigating Wildlife Spillover in the Clinical Setting: How Physicians and Veterinarians Can Help Prevent Future Disease Outbreaks.AJPM focus · 2024Review
- Drivers and facilitators of the illegal killing of elephants across 64 African sites.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Current wildlife crime (Indian scenario): major challenges and prevention approaches.Biodiversity and conservation · 2023Review
- COVID-19 impacts, opportunities and challenges for wildlife farms in Binh Duong and Ba Ria Vung Tau, Vietnam.Global ecology and conservation · 2022Article
- The U.S. market for imported wildlife not listed in the CITES multilateral treaty.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
- Risk assessment and preventive health behaviours toward COVID-19 amongst bushmeat handlers in Nigerian wildlife markets: Drivers and One Health challenge.Acta tropica · 2022Article
- Article
- Biodiversity and COVID-19: A report and a long road ahead to avoid another pandemic.One earth (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The wildlife trade is a major cause of species loss and a pathway for disease transmission. Socioeconomic drivers of the wildlife trade are influential at the local scale yet rarely accounted for in multinational agreements aimed at curtailing international trade in threatened species. In recent decades (1998-2018), approximately 421,000,000 threatened (i.e., CITES-listed) wild animals were traded between 226 nations/territories. The global trade network was more highly connected under conditions of greater international wealth inequality, when rich importers may have a larger economic advantage over poorer exporting nations/territories. Bilateral trade was driven primarily by socioeconomic factors at the supply end, with wealthier exporters likely to supply more animals to the global market. Our findings suggest that international policies for reducing the global wildlife trade should address inequalities between signatory states, possibly using incentive/compensation-driven programs modeled after other transnational environmental initiatives (e.g., REDD+).
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.