Advancing interdisciplinary research on illegal wildlife trade using a conservation criminology framework
| Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370819887512 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819887512
European Journal of Criminology
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370819887512
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Advancing interdisciplinary
research on illegal wildlife
trade using a conservation
criminology framework
Rachel Boratto and Carole Gibbs
School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, USA
Abstract
Green criminologists have recently entered a period of self-assessment, critiquing the discursive
nature of theory, over-reliance on case studies, and lack of interdisciplinarity in this area of
study, and offering a variety of ideas on how to move forward. We propose using conservation
criminology, a multi/interdisciplinary and problem-specific research framework, to expand
upon exploratory work through empirical research with clearly defined parameters. We use
the illegal wildlife trade (IWT) as an example of the potential benefits of this approach, as this
body of literature reflects the critiques raised by green criminologists. We further encourage
the replication of important studies and the use of common terminology to describe study
parameters to build towards greater generalizability that can be tested through meta-analyses
and systematic reviews. This approach will help to build a body of interdisciplinary literature that
can inform the development of empirically driven policy to address IWT and other environmental
crimes and risks.
Keywords
Conservation criminology, green criminology, wildlife crime, illegal wildlife trade, wildlife
trafficking, environmental crime
Introduction
Criminological attention to environmental issues has grown from a few historical case stud-
ies of environmental crimes (for example, Brown, 1981; Sutherland, 1949; Trench, 1967) to
several streams of literature with varying theoretical and methodological approaches.1 These
Corresponding author:
Rachel Boratto, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, Baker Hall, 655 Auditorium Rd, East
Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Email: borattor@msu.edu
887512EUC0010.1177/1477370819887512European Journal of CriminologyBoratto and Gibbs
research-article2019
Article
2021, Vol. 18(6) 777–798
include assessments of legally defined environmental crimes using traditional criminologi-
cal theory (for example, Paternoster and Simpson, 1996), frequently conducted by ‘main-
stream’ criminologists. Critical scholars, often referred to as green criminologists, have also
contributed to this body of work, examining environmental harms using case studies and
theory from outside of mainstream criminology (for example, Lynch et al., 2013).
Green criminologists have recently entered a period of self-assessment, reflecting on
the state of theory and methodology in this area of study (Lynch et al., 2017). These
scholars largely agree that green criminology represents a set of loosely connected, broad
theoretical perspectives, rather than a single one (South, 1998; White, 2008, 2013).2
However, the development or inclusion of specific theories of environmental harms
(beyond the application of ‘old’ theories of street crime to ‘new’ problems) has been
limited (Brisman, 2014) and problematic (Lynch et al., 2017). In the state crime arena,
for example, Lynch and colleagues (2017) critique theoretical insights as ‘non-parsimo-
nious’ and ‘unwieldy,’ because each study offers a new variable with little understanding
of how it fits into a larger theoretical model. In part, this may be due to the dominant
methodological approaches in this area. Lynch et al. (2017) argue that green criminolo-
gists have relied heavily on case studies that suffer from selection bias (or at least failure
to define case selection criteria) and lack generalizability. Or, it may also be due to the
nature of theory. Green criminologists have relied primarily on normative or political
accounts of environmental harms rather than specific propositions that specify a relation-
ship between variables in logical form (see Abend, 2008). As a result, green criminology
is left open to the critique that it is loosely connected, descriptive, and overly subjective
(Lynch et al., 2017).
To advance this state of affairs, Brisman (2014: 25) proposes further developing con-
structivist perspectives to better interpret and understand the ‘representation and mean-
ing of environmental crime and harm’. Lynch et al. (2017), however, advocate for
creating more parsimonious etiological theories through quantitative hypothesis testing
to increase the impact of this work on the field of criminology and policy. Lynch, Long,
Barrett and Stretesky (2013) also propose collaboration with ecological scientists to bet-
ter measure environmental harms. Sollund (2017: 250), on the other hand, suggests that
research can be value driven and situated within one’s personal experience ‘to display
harms, as they are, and explore, reveal and analyze the mechanisms by which they take
place’. She advocates for using feminist epistemologies and auto-ethnography to advance
green criminology (see also Sollund, 2019). Thus, green criminologists agree on the goal
of advancing this area of study, albeit using an assortment of methodological approaches
related to definitions of theory as normative arguments versus objective and testable
propositions (see Abend, 2008).
To illustrate possible methods for advancing theory, we will focus on the illegal wild-
life trade (IWT).3 IWT includes poaching4, capture, processing, trade/transport and col-
lection of protected wildlife and wildlife products (Burgener et al., 2001, in South and
Wyatt, 2011). Each stage can be comprised of different actors with different motivations
(Wyatt, 2013). It often includes multiple crimes that cross borders and involve loosely
affiliated networks that are difficult to track (Elliott, 2009; Hill, 2005; Runhovde, 2015).
In addition, IWT occurs in ‘coupled human and natural systems,’ meaning that develop-
ing an understanding of both systems and their overlap is necessary (Liu et al., 2007).
778 European Journal of Criminology 18(6)
To continue reading
Request your trial