No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Exploring the impacts of biodiversity loss perceptions on preferences and behaviours related to animal fur and skin product consumption
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 August 2025
Summary
The drivers of the unsustainable consumption of animal products have been researched, but, to date, no studies have specifically examined the interplay between perceptions of biodiversity loss consequences, beliefs in its existence and significance and the consumption of animal skin and fur products. We explore how people’s perceived consequences of biodiversity loss are associated with their consumption preferences and behaviours related to animal fur/skin products in varying scenarios of biodiversity loss beliefs. Applying Bayesian mindsponge framework analytics to a dataset of 535 Vietnamese urban residents (with 85.05% holding an undergraduate or higher degree), we found that, for people viewing biodiversity loss as real and significant, perceived consequences of biodiversity loss were negatively associated with the preference for animal skin/fur products. Conversely, when they viewed biodiversity loss as unreal or real but insignificant, the association was the reverse. Regarding the ownership of skin/fur products, among those who considered biodiversity loss insignificant, perceived consequences of biodiversity loss were correlated with owning more such products. However, for individuals who saw biodiversity loss as a major issue or denied its existence, ownership remained unaffected by perceptions of its consequences. These findings underscore the need for interdisciplinary research in sociocultural and environmental psychology to improve our understanding of the human–nature relationship and inform evidence-based policies integrating science and humanistic values.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Research Paper
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation
References
Aiama, D, Carbone, G, Cator, D, Challender, DWS (2016) Biodiversity Risks and Opportunities in the Apparel Sector. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, AA, Tilley, HB, Lau, W, Dudgeon, D, Bonebrake, TC, Dingle, C (2021) Cites and beyond: Illuminating 20 years of global, legal wildlife trade. Global Ecology & Conservation 26: e01455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brittain, S, Ibbett, H, de Lange, E, Dorward, L, Hoyte, S, Marino, A et al. (2020) Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. Conservation Biology 34: 925–933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camerer, CF, Dreber, A, Holzmeister, F, Ho, T-H, Huber, J, Johannesson, M et al. (2018) Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour 2: 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, RH, Bouchet, P, Fontaine, B (2022) The sixth mass extinction: fact, fiction or speculation? Biological Reviews 97: 640–663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowles, MK (2013) Applied Bayesian Statistics: With R and Openbugs Examples. New York, NY. USA: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csaba, FF, Skjold, E (2018) Fur and sustainability: oxymoron or key to ‘deeper’ luxury? Journal of Design, Business & Society 4: 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, EO, Willemsen, M, Dang, V, O’Connor, D, Glikman, JA (2020) An updated analysis of the consumption of tiger products in urban vietnam. Global Ecology and Conservation 22: e00960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaconis, P, Ylvisaker, D (1985) Quantifying prior opinion. In: Bernardo, JM, DeGroot, MH, Lindley, DV, Smith, AFM (eds), Bayesian Statistics (pp. 133–156). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland Press.Google Scholar
Drury, R (2011) Hungry for success: urban consumer demand for wild animal products in vietnam. Conservation and Society 9: 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunson, DB (2001) Commentary: Practical advantages of Bayesian analysis of epidemiologic data. American Journal of Epidemiology 153: 1222–1226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geiger, SM, Geiger, M, Wilhelm, O (2019) Environment-specific vs. general knowledge and their role in pro-environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
General Statistics Office of Vietnam (2022) Report on Labor Force Survey 2020. Hanoi, Vietnam: General Statistics Office of Vietnam.Google Scholar
Gill, J (2014) Bayesian Methods: A Social and Behavioral Sciences Approach. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, S, Lim, WM, Verma, HV, Polonsky, M (2023) How can we encourage mindful consumption? Insights from mindfulness and religious faith. Journal of Consumer Marketing 40: 344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ha, N, Tam, H (2015) Attitudes and purchase intention towards counterfeiting luxurious fashion products in Vietnam. International Journal of Economics and Finance 7: 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halsey, LG, Curran-Everett, D, Vowler, SL, Drummond, GB (2015) The fickle p value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods 12: 179–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ienna, M, Rofe, A, Gendi, M, Douglas, HE, Kelly, M, Hayward, MW et al. (2022) The relative role of knowledge and empathy in predicting pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Sustainability 14: 4622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, S (2024) Factors influencing online luxury purchase intentions: the moderating role of bandwagon luxury consumption behavior. South Asian Journal of Business Studies 13: 90–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janmaimool, P, Khajohnmanee, S (2019) Roles of environmental system knowledge in promoting university students’ environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors. Sustainability 11: 4270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, HJ, Oh, KW (2019) Exploring the sustainability concepts regarding leather apparel in China and South Korea. Sustainability 11: 5389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbert, E (2014) The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. New York, NY, USA: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Kollmuss, A, Agyeman, J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8: 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La, V-P, Vuong, Q-H (2019) Bayesvl: visually learning the graphical structure of Bayesian networks and performing MCMC with ‘Stan’. The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) [www document]. URL https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bayesvl/index.html
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le, NTC, Quy, VT (2020) Personal values of luxury services consumption: a Confucian culture perspective. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 32: 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, WM (2016) A blueprint for sustainability marketing: defining its conceptual boundaries for progress. Marketing Theory 16: 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, P, Teng, M, Han, C (2020a) How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors? The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Science of the Total Environment 728: 138126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, Y, Liu, MT, Pérez, A, Chan, W, Collado, J, Mo, Z (2020b) The importance of knowledge and trust for ethical fashion consumption. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 33: 1175–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luiselli, L, Bonnet, X, Rocco, M, Amori, G (2012) Conservation implications of rapid shifts in the trade of wild african and asian pythons. Biotropica 44: 569–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, TJ, Ellen, PS, Ajzen, I (1992) A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18: 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2014) Vietnam Fifth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biologival Diversity. Hanoi, Vietnam: Vietnamese Government.Google Scholar
Natusch, DJD, Lyons, JA (2014) Assessment of Python Breeding Farms Supplying the International High-End Leather Industry. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Nguyen, M-H (2021) Multifaceted interactions between urban humans and biodiversity-related concepts: a developing-country dataset. Data Intelligence 3: 578–605.Google Scholar
Nguyen, M-H, Jones, TE (2022) Predictors of support for biodiversity loss countermeasure and bushmeat consumption among Vietnamese urban residents. Conservation Science and Practice 4: e12822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, M-H, Vuong, Q-H (2025) The absurdity of nature love through aviary bird-keeping. Pacific Conservation Biology 31: PC25003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, M-H, La, V-P, Le, T-T, Vuong, Q-H (2022) Introduction to Bayesian mindsponge framework analytics: an innovative method for social and psychological research. MethodsX 9: 101808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, M-H, Le, T-T, Vuong, Q-H (2023a) Ecomindsponge: a novel perspective on human psychology and behavior in the ecosystem. Urban Science 7: 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, M-H, Nguyen, M-HT, Jin, R, Nguyen, Q-L, La, V-P, Le, T-T, Vuong, Q-H (2023b) Preventing the separation of urban humans from nature: the impact of pet and plant diversity on biodiversity loss belief. Urban Science 7: 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349: aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opio, C, Gerber, P, Steinfeld, H (2012) Livestock and the environment: addressing the consequences of livestock sector growth. Advances in Animal Biosciences 2: 601–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, J, Modi, A, Patel, J (2016) Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 29: 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pievani, T (2014) The sixth mass extinction: Anthropocene and the human impact on biodiversity. Rendiconti Lincei 25: 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, I, Park, J, Chi, CG-q (2015) Consequences of ‘greenwashing’: consumers’ reactions to hotels’ green initiatives. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27: 1054–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajapaksa, D, Islam, M, Managi, S (2018) Pro-environmental behavior: the role of public perception in infrastructure and the social factors for sustainable development. Sustainability 10: 937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchandani, M, Coste-Maniere, I (2017) To fur or not to fur: sustainable production and consumption within animal-based luxury and fashion products. In: SS, Muthu (ed.), Textiles and Clothing Sustainability: Sustainable Fashion and Consumption (pp. 41–60). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovelli, C (2018) Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Sandalj, M, Treydte, AC, Ziegler, S (2016) Is wild meat luxury? Quantifying wild meat demand and availability in Hue, Vietnam. Biological Conservation 194: 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shairp, R, Veríssimo, D, Fraser, I, Challender, D, MacMillan, D (2016) Understanding urban demand for wild meat in Vietnam: Implications for conservation actions. PLoS ONE 11: e0134787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shannon, CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, DC, Jin, BE (2021) Do fur coats symbolize status or stigma? Examining the effect of perceived stigma on female consumers’ purchase intentions toward fur coats. Fashion and Textiles 8: 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, TA, Belleau, BD, Xu, Y (2006) Predicting purchase intention of a controversial luxury apparel product. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 10: 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabo, S, Webster, J (2021) Perceived greenwashing: the effects of green marketing on environmental and product perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics 171: 719–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapper, S, Reynolds, J (1996) The wild fur trade: historical and ecological perspectives. In: Taylor, VJ, Dunstone, N (eds), The Exploitation of Mammal Populations (pp. 28–44). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullah, I, Khan, KS, Tahir, MJ, Ahmed, A, Harapan, H (2021) Myths and conspiracy theories on vaccines and COVID-19: potential effect on global vaccine refusals. Vacunas 22: 93–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuong, Q-H (2018) The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of science in transition economies. Nature Human Behaviour 2: 5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuong, Q-H (2020) Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature 582: 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q-H (2021) The semiconducting principle of monetary and environmental values exchange. Economics and Business Letters 10: 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q-H (2022) A New Theory of Serendipity: Nature, Emergence and Mechanism. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q-H, Napier, NK (2015) Acculturation and global mindsponge: an emerging market perspective. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49: 354–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q-H, Nguyen, M-H (2024a) Better Economics for the Earth: A Lesson from Quantum and Information Theories. Hanoi, Vietnam: AISDL.Google Scholar
Vuong, Q-H, Nguyen, M-H (2024b) Exploring the role of rejection in scholarly knowledge production: insights from granular interaction thinking and information theory. Learned Publishing 37: e1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q-H, Bui, Q-K, La, V-P, Vuong, T-T, Nguyen, V-HT, Ho, M-T et al. (2018) Cultural additivity: behavioural insights from the interaction of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism in folktales. Palgrave Communications 4: 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q-H, Duong, M-PT, Sari, NPWP, La, V-P, Nguyen, M-H (2024) From beauty to belief: the aesthetic and diversity values of plants and pets in shaping biodiversity loss belief among Vietnamese urban residents. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11: 1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q-H, Ho, M-T, Nguyen, M-H, Thang Hang, P, Vuong, T-T, Khuc, Q et al. (2021) On the environment-destructive probabilistic trends: a perceptual and behavioral study on video game players. Technology in Society 65: 101530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q-H, Le, T-T, La, V-P, Nguyen, HTT, Ho, M-T, Van Khuc, Q, Nguyen, M-H (2022a) COVID-19 vaccines production and societal immunization under the serendipity-mindsponge-3D knowledge management theory and conceptual framework. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9: 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q-H, Nguyen, M-H, La, V-P (2022b) The Mindsponge and BMF Analytics for Innovative Thinking in Social Sciences and Humanities. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenmakers, E-J, Marsman, M, Jamil, T, Ly, A, Verhagen, J, Love, J et al. (2018) Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin Review 25: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Wildlife Fund (2020) Living Planet Report 2020 – Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund.Google Scholar
Vuong et al. supplementary material 1
Vuong et al. supplementary material
File
1.1 MB
Vuong et al. supplementary material 2
Vuong et al. supplementary material
File
420.6 KB
Vuong et al. supplementary material 1
Vuong et al. supplementary material
File
172.5 KB
Vuong et al. supplementary material 2
Vuong et al. supplementary material
File
150.5 KB
Vuong et al. supplementary material 3
Vuong et al. supplementary material
File
1.4 KB
Vuong et al. supplementary material 4
Vuong et al. supplementary material
File
1.1 MB
Vuong et al. supplementary material 5
Vuong et al. supplementary material
PDF
466.9 KB
Vuong et al. supplementary material 6
Vuong et al. supplementary material
PDF
541.7 KB
Vuong et al. supplementary material 7
Vuong et al. supplementary material
PDF
465.8 KB
Vuong et al. supplementary material 8
Vuong et al. supplementary material
PDF
420.6 KB