ArticleGlobal ecology and conservation2023
Perceptions of COVID-19 origins and China's wildlife policy reforms.
Article in Global ecology and conservation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lockdown's Silver Lining? Different Levels of Roadkill during the COVID-19 Times in Lithuania.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the link between perceptions of zoonotic risk and support for regulations such as wildlife consumption bans, debates regarding the origins of COVID-19 are likely to have conservation implications. Specifically, alternative hypotheses that cast doubt on COVID-19's zoonotic origins could potentially lessen momentum for China's wildlife policy reforms and their associated conservation impacts. To better understand the impact of COVID-19 origin debates on China's wildlife policies, we conducted a 974-respondent survey across mainland China, supplemented by policy and media reviews. We examined perceptions of three facets of COVID-19 origins: geographic location, source (e.g., wildlife farm, wet market, etc.), and specific wildlife species as transmitters. Our findings reveal that 64.6 % of respondents believed COVID-19 originated in the United States or Europe, not in China. Further, compared to the baseline group of respondents who selected China as the origin country, respondents who selected the United States or Europe as the origin had a greater likelihood of selecting laboratories/research and imported frozen foods as likely sources, while these respondents had a lower likelihood of selecting wild animals in a wet market or natural causes as likely sources. Despite such varied beliefs regarding COVID-19 origins, support for wildlife policy reforms was strong: 89.5 % of respondents who previously consumed wildlife self-indicated reduced consumption after the pandemic and 70.5 % of respondents supported banning the trade of all wildlife species. Moreover, those respondents who selected wild animals in a wet market as a likely source of COVID-19 had a greater likelihood of supporting a trade ban on all wild-caught wildlife and all farmed wildlife. Our results indicate that, although investigation of COVID-19's origins is on-going and politicized, there is clear support for wildlife reforms in China that can promote conservation outcomes.
Indexed as
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.