Transcript of ‘Conservation’ Criminology: Understanding and Preventing ...
Illegal Fishing in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Damian Peter Weekers
Bachelor of Arts
Bachelor of Social Science
Master of Environmental Management
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
The University of Queensland in 2020
School of Social Science
ii
Abstract
Wildlife crime is a significant global problem that undermines
efforts to protect
the environment, applies immense pressure to often fragile social
and cultural
structures and deprives economies of wealth and the capacity of
countries to
achieve sustainable development goals. Wildlife poaching, referring
to the illegal
removal of flora or fauna, is the most common form of wildlife
crime and often
occurs from within the spatial boundaries of protected areas (PAs).
People poach
for a variety of reasons such as, traditional use, subsistence,
recreational and
commercial gain. The wide-ranging motivations held by individual
poachers
makes it a particularly complex problem for PA managers. The rise
of poaching in
recent times has been largely managed through traditional detect
and deter
strategies that place an emphasis on increasing the risk of
prosecution, and
sometimes death, for poaching. While enforcement remains a key
component for
managing poaching, applied in isolation it represents a relatively
blunt instrument
for eliciting compliance.
The failure of current approaches to deal with the global poaching
epidemic has
led to a growing acknowledgement by both academics and
practitioners for a need
to improve our understating and management of wildlife crime
problems. In
pursuit of this agenda are a growing number of criminologists with
an interest in
wildlife crime from the field of environmental criminology.
Applying traditional
environmental criminological approaches to a variety of wildlife
crime problems,
these researchers are forging a foundation for the inclusion of
social science in
conservation management. Guided by this emerging field, the current
research
explores the utility of applying theories and methods from
environmental
criminology and crime analysis for understanding poaching in
Australia’s Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park). The aim
of this
research project was to, a) explore the utility of applying
environmental
criminology and crime analysis techniques to build a better
understanding of
wildlife crime in general and illegal fishing in particular, and b)
develop a process
for designing effective compliance management strategies using the
GBRMP in
Australia as a case study.
iii
Using official compliance incident data provided by the Great
Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority, I examine recreational poaching in no-take
Marine National
Parks through the theoretical lens of environmental criminology.
Each of the three
empirical case studies herein apply established theoretical
concepts from the field
of environmental criminology to advance the understanding of
motivated
offenders, suitable places and vulnerable targets. The final case
study, applies
crime script analysis to these findings to formulate
prevention-based strategies
through a situational crime prevention framework.
Ultimately, the objective of this research project was to explore
how the
theories of environmental criminology could be used to improve
compliance
management practice in PAs. The evidence provided within this
thesis suggests
that poaching exhibits similar patterns to those found in
traditional forms of crime.
Central to the formation of these patterns are the conditions of
opportunity
whereby motivated offenders converge with vulnerable targets at
suitable places
in the absence of capable guardians. Where opportunity is the key
driver for
poaching, environmental criminology offers PA managers with a wide
ranging
collection of prevention focused compliance strategies. By
providing new
knowledge, this thesis advances the agenda for examining wildlife
crime problems
through the theoretical lens of environmental criminology.
iv
Declaration by author
This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no
material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference
has been
made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others
to jointly-
authored works that I have included in my thesis.
I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a
whole, including
statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant
technical procedures,
professional editorial advice, financial support and any other
original research
work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the
result of work I
have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by
research
candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that
has been
submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma
in any university
or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of
my thesis, if any,
have been submitted to qualify for another award.
I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged
with the
University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The
University of
Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in
accordance
with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been
approved by the
Dean of the Graduate School.
I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis
resides with the
copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have
obtained copyright
permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this
thesis and have
sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works
included in the
thesis.
v
Weekers, D., Zahnow, R., & Mazerolle, L. (2019). Conservation
Criminology: Modelling Offender Target Selection for Illegal
Fishing in Marine Protected Areas. British Journal Of Criminology,
59(6), 1455-1477. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz020.
Weekers, D. and Zahnow, R. (2019). Risky Facilities: Analysis of
Illegal Recreational Fishing in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
52(3), 368-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865818804021.
Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis
Weekers, D., Zahnow, R., & Mazerolle, L. (under review).
Space-Time Patterns of Poaching Risk: Using the near-repeat
hypothesis to inform compliance enforcement in marine protected
areas. Biological Conservation.
Weekers, D. (under review). Using crime scripts and the situational
crime
prevention framework to inform compliance management approaches to
poaching
in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. In A. Lemieux
ed., Poaching
Diaries.
Other publications during candidature
Thiault, L., Weekers, D., Curnock, M., Marshall, N., Pert, P.L.,
Beeden, R., Dyer, M. and
Claudet, J. (2019). Predicting poaching risk in marine protected
areas for improved
patrol efficiency, Journal of Environmental Management,
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109808.
Weekers, D. & Simpson, A. (2018). Understanding and preventing
illegal fishing in
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Australasian Environmental Law
Enforcement
and Regulators Network, Sydney, Australia.
vi
Weekers, D. (2018). Analysis of illegal recreational fishing in the
Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park, Australia. Environmental Criminology and Crime
Analysis (ECCA)
Symposium, Elche, Spain.
Weekers, D. (2018). Risky Places: Examining Spatial Risk Factors
for poaching in
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia. European Society
of Criminology
(EUROCRIM2018), Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Weekers, D. (2019). Using crime analysis techniques to improve
compliance
management planning and delivery in marine protected areas.
Australian Coral
Reef Society (ACRS), Morton Island, Queensland, Australia.
Contributions by others to the thesis
Professor Lorraine Mazerolle and Dr Renee Zahnow assisted in the
design of the
research project, development of methodological approaches and
editing of the
manuscript.
Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award
of another
degree
No works submitted towards another degree have been included in
this thesis.
Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects
No animal or human subjects were involved in this research.
vii
Acknowledgements
This research project began in earnest following a chance meeting
with
Professor Lorraine Mazerolle at the University of Queensland St
Lucia campus in
2015. I had been looking for a supervisor to support my
conceptually vague
research project on improving the effectiveness of compliance
management in
protected areas. I met with Lorraine, delivered my pitch using
examples of
analysis products that I had produced in my role as the
intelligence analyst in the
compliance unit of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. By
the end of
that meeting, Lorraine had introduced me to environmental
criminology, agreed to
supervise my project and had mapped out my thesis in a series of
expressive
diagrams on a dozen or so loose sheets of note paper. Since then
Lorraine has
been unyielding in her support and encouragement, never allowing me
to fall short
of her expectations. For this I am forever grateful. Thank you
Lorraine.
I am also grateful for the encouragement and support of my other
supervisor, Dr
Renee Zahnow. Renee joined my supervisory team in 2017 at a
critical point in my
project and at a time when I was considering whether or not to
continue. Her
enthusiasm towards my research was evident from the start and I
credit Renee for
providing me with the courage to continue on with my candidature
and for guiding
me through the final years of my project. My life would be very
different if I hadn’t
met Renee. Thank you Renee.
This project would not have been possible without the support of
the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and in particular Andrew
Simpson, Richard
Quincey and Dr Simon Banks. Through these individuals, the
Authority entrusted
me with complete access to an enviable repository of compliance
data covering
more than a decade of poaching incidents and management responses
within the
iconic Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Authority has provided
me with crucial
support in terms of paid study leave and travel to attend
criminology conferences
including the ECCA 2018 in Spain which introduced me to the
environmental
criminology community. It was here that I first met other academics
interested in
wildlife crime, a number of whom I am now fortunate enough to
consider my
colleagues. My objective through this project, as in my work, has
always been to
viii
contribute to the long-term conservation of the Great Barrier Reef.
I hope that this
research achieves that goal in some small way.
Finally, and most importantly, I could not have completed this
project without
the love and support of my wife Athena and children Harper, Jack
and Matilda.
Athena is the bedrock for our family unit and over the past five
years has taken on
more than her fair share of responsibility as I indulged in this
academic endeavor.
My children have also spent much of their childhood watching their
father sitting
at a desk surrounded by papers and books. I love you and I am
thankful for your
support and sacrifice.
Keywords
fishing, poaching, wildlife crime, great barrier reef marine
park.
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications
(ANZSRC)
ANZRC code: 050209, Natural Resource Management, 20%
Fields of Research (FoR) Classification
FoR Code: 1602, Criminology, 80%
FoR Code: 0502, Environmental Science and Management, 20%
x
CONTENTS
1.2 The problem
..................................................................................................................................
19
1.4 Biodiversity conservation and the role of protected areas.
................................... 22
1.5 Research aims and questions
................................................................................................
23
1.6 The study site: The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia
............................ 25
1.7 Organisation of the thesis
.......................................................................................................
27
CHAPTER 2
............................................................................................................................................
32
2.1 Introduction
..................................................................................................................................
32
2.2 The relationship between the social and natural world in
biological
conservation
.........................................................................................................................................
33
management in protected
areas..................................................................................................
34
2.4 Understanding wildlife crime through the lens of environmental
criminology
.....................................................................................................................................................................
37
2.4.4 The role of opportunity in environmental criminology
................................................. 39
2.4.5 The opportunity structure of crime
..........................................................................................
40
2.5 The opportunity structure for illegal recreational fishing in
the GBRMP –
motivated offenders, vulnerable targets and suitable places
....................................... 42
2.5.1 The motivated
offender...................................................................................................................
42
2.5.5 The suitable
place...............................................................................................................................
44
DESIGN A PREVENTION BASED APPROACH TO COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT
IN
PROTECTED AREAS.
.........................................................................................................................
47
3.2.2 Handlers control offenders
...........................................................................................................
50
3.2.3 Guardians control targets
..............................................................................................................
50
3.2.4 Managers control places
.................................................................................................................
51
3.3 How does crime control work?
............................................................................................
51
3.3.1 The role of community and guardianship in wildlife crime
......................................... 53
3.3.2 Effective management of protected areas
.............................................................................
54
3.3.4 The human dimension of managing protected areas
...................................................... 55
3.3.5 Identifying the controllers of crime in protected areas
................................................. 55
3.4 Towards a prevention-based model for compliance management
in
protected areas
....................................................................................................................................
56
3.5 Conclusion
......................................................................................................................................
66
CHAPTER 4
............................................................................................................................................
68
ILLEGAL FISHING IN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
.......................................................... 68
4.1 Introduction
..................................................................................................................................
68
4.2 Conservation Criminology
......................................................................................................
70
4.3 Environmental Criminology
..................................................................................................
71
4.6 Results
..............................................................................................................................................
80
CHAPTER 5
............................................................................................................................................
93
THE SUITABLE PLACE: ANALYSIS OF ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL FISHING IN
THE
GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK
....................................................................................
93
5.1 Introduction
..................................................................................................................................
93
5.2 Poaching in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP)
.................................... 93
5.3 Environmental criminology and the notion of risky facilities
.............................. 95
5.5 Crime generators, crime attractors and risky facilities
............................................ 97
5.6 Present study
................................................................................................................................
99
5.7.1 Research
questions.........................................................................................................................
100
CHAPTER 6
.........................................................................................................................................
114
USING THE NEAR-REPEAT HYPOTHESIS TO INFORM COMPLIANCE
ENFORCEMENT IN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
..........................................................
114
6.1 Introduction
...............................................................................................................................
114
6.3 Applying a proximal approach to compliance management in
protected
areas
.......................................................................................................................................................
116
xiii
6.6.2 Testing day-of-week patterns for poaching in the GBRMP
....................................... 125
6.5.3 Testing near-repeat patterns for poaching in the GBRMP
......................................... 125
6.5.4 Near-repeat patterns of poaching in the GBRMP by day-of-week
......................... 126
6.6
Discussion....................................................................................................................................
127
6.6.2 Study limits
.........................................................................................................................................
130
CHAPTER 7
.........................................................................................................................................
135
BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER – USING CRIME SCRIPTS AND THE
SITUATIONAL
CRIME PREVENTION FRAMEWORK TO INFORM COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT
APPROACHES TO POACHING IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK,
AUSTRALIA
.........................................................................................................................................
135
7.3 The compliance
problem......................................................................................................
136
7.4 Using CSA to unpack the poaching process in MNP-23-1168
............................ 137
Figure 7.2 A crime script for illegal recreational fishing in the
LMI MNP (adapted
from Cornish, 1994; LeClerk, 2017).
......................................................................................
138
7.5 Translating CSA into SCP techniques
.............................................................................
138
7.6 Conclusion
...................................................................................................................................
146
CHAPTER 8
.........................................................................................................................................
148
PRACTICE.
...........................................................................................................................................
148
8.2.1 The Motivated Offender: Modelling offender target selection
for illegal fishing in
marine protected areas.
...........................................................................................................................
150
8.2.2 Advances in understanding the behavior of poaches in the
GBRMP.................... 151
8.2.3 How does understanding offender behavior advance compliance
management
responses?
......................................................................................................................................................
152
8.2.4 The Suitable Place: Analysis of illegal recreational fishing
in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia.
.............................................................................................................................
153
8.2.5 Advances in understanding the suitability of places for
poaching in the GBRMP154
xiv
responses?
......................................................................................................................................................
156
8.2.7 The Vulnerable Target: Space-time patterns of poaching risk –
using the near-repeat
hypothesis to inform compliance management in marine protected
areas................. 157
8.2.8 How does understanding target vulnerability and repeat
victimisation advance
compliance management responses?
...............................................................................................
160
8.3 Concluding remarks
...............................................................................................................
161
List of References
............................................................................................................................
163
List of Figures and Tables
FIGURE 1.1 REPORTED ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL FISHING INCIDENTS IN THE
GBRMP 2010-2019 ........................................... 20
FIGURE 1.2 THE CRIME PROBLEM TRIANGLE (ECK, 2006)
.............................................................................................................
24 FIGURE 1.3 MAP OF THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK, AUSTRALIA
..................................................................................
26 FIGURE 2.1 THE CONSERVATION CRIMINOLOGY FRAMEWORK (GIBB ET AL.,
2010)
......................................................................
37 FIGURE 2.2 AN EXAMPLE OF THE CRIME OPPORTUNITY TRIANGLE ADAPTED
FOR POACHING IN THE GBRMP. ........................... 41 FIGURE
3.1 CRIME PROBLEM ANALYSIS (DOUBLE) TRIANGLE ADAPTED FROM ECK
(2006) FOR ILLEGAL FISHING IN NO-TAKE
MNPS IN THE GBRMP.
.............................................................................................................................................................
49 FIGURE 3.2 THE WEB OF CRIME CONTROL. HERE FELSON’S ORIGINAL 1986
WEB OF INFORMAL CRIME CONTROL HAS BEEN
ADAPTED TO INCLUDE THE FORMAL CONTROL OF INFORMED MANAGERS OF
SUITABLE PLACES. ......................................... 52 TABLE
3.1 CONTROLLERS OF ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL FISHING IN THE GBRMP.
..........................................................................
55 FIGURE 3.2 A CRIME SCRIPT FOR POACHING IN NO-TAKE MNPS IN THE
GBRMP (ADAPTED FROM CORNISH, 1994; LECLERK,
2017).
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
60 TABLE 3.2 SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION TECHNIQUES FOR WILDLIFE
CRIME (ADAPTED FROM MORETO & PIRES,
2018:146)
.................................................................................................................................................................................
63 FIGURE. 4.1 THE LOCATION OF THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK
IN AUSTRALIA SHOWING THE STUDY SITES USED FOR
EXAMINING ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL FISHING IN NO-TAKE MARINE NATIONAL
PARKS ........................................................ 76
FIGURE. 4.2 COMPLIANCE REPORTING SECTOR 15
...........................................................................................................................
77 FIGURE. 4.3 COMPLIANCE REPORTING SECTOR 48
...........................................................................................................................
77 TABLE 4.1 POISSON REGRESSION MODEL OF REGIONAL VARIATION OF
POACHING FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 2010 TO
DECEMBER 2016 (CRS
15).......................................................................................................................................................
81 TABLE 4.2 STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF TRAVEL DISTANCE DATA BETWEEN
OFFENDER PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND ACCESS
POINT FOR CRS 15.
....................................................................................................................................................................
81 TABLE 4.3 STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF TRAVEL DISTANCE DATA BETWEEN
OFFENDER PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND ACCESS
POINT FOR CRS 48
.....................................................................................................................................................................
82 TABLE 4.4 POISSON REGRESSION MODEL OF REGIONAL VARIATION OF
POACHING FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 2010 TO
DECEMBER 2016 (CRS
48)......................................................................................................................................................
82 TABLE 4. 5 POISSON REGRESSION MODEL OF REGIONAL VARIATION OF
POACHING FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 2010 TO
DECEMBER 2016 (HIGH-RISK MNPS IN CRS 48)
..................................................................................................................
84 FIGURE 4.4 POACHING DENSITY BY DISTANCE FROM NEAREST ACCESS
POINT IN CRS 15 AND 48
............................................... 84 TABLE 4.6
STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF DISTANCE DATA FOR ALL MNPS IN CRS 15 AND
CRS 48. ........................................... 86 TABLE 5.1.
THE MEASURE OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ELEMENT
OF OPPORTUNITY PROPOSED BY
ECK ET AL. (2007).
.................................................................................................................................................................
102 FIGURE 5.1 THE DISTRIBUTION OF POACHING WITHIN ALL MNPS IN THE
GBRMP BETWEEN 2010 AND 2018. ................... 103 FIGURE 5.2 A
PLOT OF THE HISTOGRAM, CORRELATIONS AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
BETWEEN THE DEPENDENT
VARIABLE (INCIDENTS) AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES FOR MEASURES OF
OPPORTUNITY ASSOCIATED WITH OFFENDERS,
TARGETS AND PLACE MANAGEMENT.
......................................................................................................................................
104 TABLE 5.2 THE RESULTS OF A NEGATIVE BINOMINAL REGRESSION FOR
THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USING THE COUNT OF
POACHING EVENTS IN MNPS AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE.
..............................................................................................
105 FIGURE 6.1 THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK, SHOWING THE
DEFINED MANAGEMENT AREAS. ................................. 119
TABLE 6.1 POISSON REGRESSION MODEL OF MONTHLY VARIATION IN POACHING
INCIDENTS FOR THE PERIOD JAN 2010 TO
JAN 2018. SHADED GRIDS REPRESENT THE HIGHEST RISK MONTHS FOR
POACHING. (SEPTEMBER IS THE REFERENCE –
HIGHEST FREQUENCY)
.............................................................................................................................................................
124 TABLE 6.2 POISSON REGRESSION MODEL OF DAILY VARIATION IN
POACHING INCIDENTS FOR THE PERIOD JAN 2008 TO JAN
2018.........................................................................................................................................................................................
124 FIGURE 6.2 KNOX RATIOS FOR POACHING INCIDENTS FOR THE PERIOD
JAN 2010 TO JAN 2018 ..............................................
126 TABLE 6.3 NEAR REPEAT RISK VALUES (KNOX RATIOS) AND
SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS OF POACHING INCIDENTS FOR THE PERIOD
JAN 2010 TO JAN 2018.
.........................................................................................................................................................
126 FIGURE 6.3 REPRESENTATION OF POACHING HOTSPOTS AND POACHING
NEAR REPEATS HOTSPOTS IN THE GBRMP, 2010-
2018.........................................................................................................................................................................................
129 FIGURE 7.1 ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL FISHING (POACHING) EVENTS IN
MNP-23-1168, 2014-2019 (SOURCE GBRMPA). 136 FIGURE 7.2 A CRIME
SCRIPT FOR ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL FISHING IN THE LMI MNP (ADAPTED
FROM CORNISH, 1994;
LECLERK, 2017).
....................................................................................................................................................................
138
xvi
FIGURE 7.3 A COMPLIANCE INFORMATION SIGN AT A POINT ALONG THE ONLY
ACCESS ROAD INTO THE TOWN OF 1770.
(SOURCE GBRMPA)
...............................................................................................................................................................
139 TABLE 7.1 CRIME SCRIPT ANALYSIS MATRIX FOR POACHING IN
MNP-23-1168
........................................................................
140
xvii
Compliance Reporting Sector (CRS)
Crime Script Analysis (CSA)
Field Management Program (FMP)
Great Barrier Reef (GBR)
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA)
Marine National Park (MNP)
Marine Protected Area (MPA)
Maritime Border Command (MBC)
Queensland Police Service (QPS)
Situational Crime Prevention (SCP)
1.1 Background and significance
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is a large Marine
Protected Area
(MPA) covering approximately 344,400km2 and stretching some 2300 km
along
the coast of Queensland in Australia (Figure 1.1). Established in
1975 under the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cth), the GBRMP makes up
99% of the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), which extends to
include the
State of Queensland internal waters, 12 port areas and around 980
islands (Day &
Dobbs, 2013). The GBRWHA is recognised as having outstanding
universal value,
with a – ‘natural significance which is so exceptional as to
transcend national
boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future
generations of all
humanity’ (UNESCO, 2012). Beyond its universal value, the Great
Barrier Reef
(GBR) represents significant social and economic value to the 1.12
million people
who live within the GBR catchment and Australians as a whole. In
2017, the
combined economic, social and icon asset worth of the GBR was
valued at AUD$56
billion (Deloitte, 2017). Annually, the GBR generates AUD$6.4
billion from
activities including tourism, commercial fishing and recreational
use, and supports
39,000 direct jobs (Deloitte, 2017).
The GBR is, however, facing a number of significant pressures that
continue to
undermine the long-term sustainability of the region. These threats
include the
impacts of climate change, poor water quality, coastal development
and some
fishing practices (GBRMPA, 2019a). Research from the Australian
Institute of
Marine Science has shown that between 1985 and 2012, coral cover in
the GBR
declined by 50.7% as a result of severe weather events and poor
water quality
(De’Ath, Fabricius, Sweatman, and Puotinen, 2012). Climate change
has been
recognised as the most serious threat to the GBR system with
evidence of
significant climate-induced coral loss following recent severe
coral bleaching
events (Hughes et al., 2017).
19
Studies examining the ecological impacts of these threats have
also
demonstrated a causal link between decreases in live hard coral
cover and declines
in fish abundance (Cheal, Macneil, Emslie, and Sweetman, 2017).
In-shore coral
reefs are particularly vulnerable to the cumulative impacts of
these threats and
significant coral cover loss has been observed over the past
several decades
(Ceccarelli et al., 2020; De’Ath et al., 2012). Given time however,
coral systems
may recover from severe weather events, a process which can be
supported
through management actions that aim to reduce further human induced
damage
caused by activities such as illegal fishing (Lamb, Williamson,
Russ, and Willis,
2015).
1.2 The problem
Illegal fishing is a recognised compliance management problem in
the GBRMP
that adds additional anthropogenic pressures to an already
deteriorating system
(GBRMPA, 2019a). The most common type of illegal fishing observed
is illegal
recreational fishing (herein referred to as poaching) from no-take
Marine National
Parks (MNPs) (see Figure 1.1) (GBRMPA, 2018). For example, in
2017-18, the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) compliance unit
reported 654
offences of illegal recreational fishing in the GBRMP (GBRMPA,
2018). The true
level of this type of non-compliance is however not well
understood, with a
number studies revealing that the dark figure associated with
recreational
poaching is likely much higher than observed through the official
incident data
(Arias & Sutton, 2013; Bergseth et al., 2017; Williamson et
al., 2014).
20
Figure 1.1 Reported illegal recreational fishing incidents in the
GBRMP 2010-2019
21
Along with the removal of targeted fish species, negative effects
associated with
illegal fishing can arise as a result of anchor damage to coral or
discarded fishing
line, contributing to an increased risk of coral disease (Lamb et
al., 2015). In high
use inshore areas, the damage to coral health can be more
pronounced and directly
affect its ability to resist and recover from other pressures such
as severe weather
events or warm water coral bleaching (Williamson, Ceccarelli,
Jones, and Russ,
2019). Additionally, many inshore coral reefs located in high use
areas represent
important sanctuaries for fish recruitment (Harrison et al., 2012)
and hold
significant resilience value, helping the system to recover from
these external
stressors (Ceccarelli et al., 2020; Cheal et al., 2017; Williamson
et al., 2019). In
short, recreational poaching in MNPs, designed to protect these
important reefs
areas, undermines the resilience capacity of the already stressed
coral systems.
1.3 Conceptualising wildlife crime through criminology
Wildlife crime is recognised as a significant global problem that
threatens
species, impacts natural habitats and undermines the social and
economic security
of nation states (Nellemann et al. 2018). Wildlife crime is broadly
defined as acts
in violation of national law and regulations put in place to
protected natural
resources (Moreto & Pires, 2018). Poaching is a type of
wildlife crime referring to
the removal (dead or alive) of flora and fauna for some purpose
(Hill, 2015) and is
undertaken for a number of reasons including, subsistence,
traditional use,
recreational, and commercial purposes. Indeed, the illegal trade of
wildlife
products has been estimated to be as high as US$23 billion per
year, while illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU) has been estimated to
represent an
annual economic loss to global fisheries of between US$10-23.5
billion (Kahler &
Gore, 2012; Petrossian, 2019).
Criminological interest in poaching has gained momentum in the wake
of
concerns about the social, economic and ecological impacts of
wildlife crime. To
date, research into wildlife crime has been dominated by two
distinct
criminological perspectives, green and environmental criminology.
Similar to the
traditional criminological perspective, green criminology (Lynch,
1990)
conceptualises environmental crime within its historical context
through a political
22
economy lens and modernists ideas of power, control and
disadvantage (White,
2008). In contrast, environmental criminologists are interested in
the application
of a situational perspective of crimes against the environment, and
in particular
wildlife crimes. For example, environmental criminologists have
applied the
situational perspective to a wide variety of wildlife crimes such
as; illegal wildlife
markets (Kurland & Pires, 2017; Moreto & Lemieux, 2014;
Petrossian, Pires & van
Uhm, 2016; Pires, 2015a; Pires, 2015b), illegal fishing
(Petrossian, 2015;
Petrossian, 2018; Petrossian, de By & Clarke, 2018; Petrossian,
Marteache &
Viollaz, 2015), and poaching (Clarke, 2013; Kurland, Marteache
& Pires, 2019;
Pires & Clarke, 2011).
In addition to green and environmental criminology, researchers’
with an
interested in wildlife crime have been increasingly attracted
towards the
application of the conservation criminology framework (Gibbs, Gore,
Mcgarrell, and
Rivers, 2010) to examine wildlife crime problems. Proponents of
this approach
argue that to effectively address environmental crime issues,
including wildlife
crime, natural resource managers need to come together with
criminologists with
the goal of developing long-term sustainable management solutions.
Central to the
argument put forward by these researchers is the immediacy of many
wildlife
crime problems, and the need to identify practical strategies for
conservation
management. The integration of criminology with natural resource
management,
acknowledges that criminologists are not necessarily familiar with
conservation
policy and practice, and that in order to become policy relevant
the beneficiaries of
their analysis (ie. the conservation community) need to be
integrated into the
design of management relevant strategies (Gore, 2011, 2017).
1.4 Biodiversity conservation and the role of protected
areas.
Protected areas are considered to be the primary conservation
mechanism for
the protection of global biodiversity (Cook, Carter & Hockings,
2014). Under the
internationally agreed Aichi Biodiversity Target, 193 countries
have committed to
effectively and equitably manage 10% of global coastal marine areas
and 17% of
global terrestrial and inland waters by 2020 (United Nations,
2010). To date,
terrestrial protected areas have increased to approximately 15%
global coverage,
23
with MPA coverage increasing to 7.44% (IUCN-WCMC, 2018). The rapid
growth in
marine protection since 2011 has been underpinned by the
establishment of a
number of very large MPAs, including the two million km2 Ross Seas
MPA off
Antarctica (UNEP-WCMC, 2018). Indeed, the designation of such very
large MPAs
accounts for 65% of the total global coverage of marine areas
(UNEP-WCMC,
2018).
Yet despite the positive advances towards reaching the Aichi
Biodiversity
Target 11, concerns remain about the ability of countries to
fulfill their effective
management obligations. The notion of paper parks has been used to
describe the
creation of protected areas without a capacity to enforce the
regulations that
support the conservation objectives of such places (Wilham et al.,
2014). Research
examining the effectiveness of protected areas consistently shows
that
management capacity (Gill et al, 2017) and the ability to enforce
compliance are
key elements of success in both MPAs (Edgar et al, 2014; Campbell
et al, 2012;
Wilhelm et al, 2014) and terrestrial protected areas (Jackmann,
2008a; Linkie et
al., 2015; Tranquilli et al., 2014). Moreover, it has been argued
that the allocation
of protected areas without the necessary enforcement capacity can
actually reduce
conservation outcomes, and that effective management may be more
important
than size (Kuempel, 2018).
The aim of this research project is to:
a) Explore the utility of applying environmental criminology
and
crime analysis techniques to build a better understanding of
wildlife
crime in general and illegal fishing in particular, and
b) Develop a process for designing effective compliance
management
strategies using the GBRMP in Australia as a case study.
Specifically, this research project examines the wildlife crime
problem of
recreational poaching from no-take Marine National Parks (MNPs) in
the GBRMP.
To achieve this aim, this thesis analyses the poaching problem
using the primary
theories associated with environmental criminology, routine
activity, rational
24
choice theory and crime pattern theory. Within this analytical
framework, each case
study examines one of three elements of crime opportunity, willing
offenders,
vulnerable targets and suitable places to develop an understanding
of the wildlife
crime problem that can be used to increase the influence of the
controller of crime,
handlers, capable guardians and place managers (Fig 1.2).
Figure 1.2 The Crime Problem Triangle (adapted from Eck,
2003)
To this end, the study seeks to answer the follow research
questions:
1. Motivated Offender – Can the theories and methods from
environmental criminology and crime analysis be used to
advance the understanding of poacher behavior in the GBRMP?
2. Suitable Places – Can the theories and methods from
environmental criminology and crime analysis be used to
identify the features of no-take MNPs that make them
attractive
to poachers?
environmental criminology and crime analysis be used identify
patterns of target vulnerability for poaching in the GBRMP?
Inherent within the answers to these research questions are the
implications
that each holds for the development and implementation of
theoretically grounded
and evidence-based compliance management practice.
1.6 The study site: The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
Australia
The GBRMP is a large MPA consisting of a network of multiple-use
zones. The
current configuration of zoning was implemented in 2003 and
designed to reflect a
range of social, economic and cultural considerations (Hand, 2003).
Among the
objectives of the 2003 zoning plan, was the intent to protect 20%
of identified
bioregions and extend the total area of no-take MNPs from 4.6% to
33% of the
total area within the GBRMP (Hand, 2003) (see Figure 1.3).
The GBRMP is located in a multi-jurisdictional region and is
managed under
joint arrangements between the state (Queensland) and
Commonwealth
(Australia) governments. These arrangements are set out in the
Emerald
Agreement which states that ‘day-to-day’ management of the GBRMP is
to be
undertaken by both the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS)
and the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (Commonwealth of
Australia,
1979). The joint Field Management Program (FMP), made up of both
QPWS and
GBRMPA officers, is the realization of the Emerald Agreement, and
work to five key
priority areas for managing the GBRMP including, delivering
practical conservation
actions, monitoring, engagement with Marine Park users, incident
response and
compliance management (GBRMPA, 2018). While QPWS officers are
involved in all
activities associated with these priorities, the coordination and
management of the
compliance program is the responsibility of the Field Management
Compliance
Unit (FMCU) within GBRMPA. The FMCU is responsible for assessing
compliance
risks, prioritization of compliance activity, the allocation of
multi-agency patrol
resources and the management of non-compliance incidents and
investigations.
For example, in 2017-18, the FMP conducted 888 days of vessel-based
compliance
patrols and 66 days of aerial surveillance (GBRMPA, 2018). During
this period, the
26
FMCU recorded 1189 possible offences (55% for illegal recreational
fishing),
issuing 130 infringement notices, nearly 500 warning letters, and
proceeded with
42 court prosecutions (GBRMPA, 2018).
Figure 1.3 Map of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
Australia
27
1.7 Organisation of the thesis
Following on from the introduction, this thesis will comprise seven
chapters
consisting of two literature reviews, three empirical case studies
and finally a
discussion and conclusion chapter. The first of the literature
review chapters,
Using environmental criminology to understand compliance management
problems
in protected areas, examines the challenges faced by conservation
criminologists
attempting to extend criminological perspectives of wildlife crime
in an area
(conservation management) traditionally dominated by the physical
sciences. I
begin this chapter through an examination of the case for
increasing the relevance
of social science in biological conservation. Despite the
historical dominance of the
biological sciences, there are growing calls for of coupling of
ecological and human
dimensions in conservation management. Within the literature, many
researchers
hold the position that the relevance of social science has been
restricted due to an
inability of the discipline to put forward a framework for
fostering a meaningful
social-natural science model. In light of increasing pressure on
ecological systems
and biodiversity, the urgency for developing new approaches to
conservation
management has become acute. One area of major concern is that
of
environmental crime. With an emphasis on wildlife crime, I explore
the emergence
of criminological perspectives towards crimes against the
environmental,
specifically wildlife crime. I then turn to a more detailed
examination of the
theories that underpin the environmental criminology perspective,
paying
particular attention to the centrality that opportunity plays in
this approach, and
its applicability towards understanding wildlife crime
problems.
The third chapter, Beyond detect and deter: Using environmental
criminology to
design a prevention-based approach to compliance management in
protected areas,
extends the theoretical discussion on the elements of crime
opportunity
(motivated offenders, vulnerable targets and suitable places) in
the previous
chapter, to include the controllers of crime opportunity (handlers,
capable
guardians and place managers). Understanding how each of these
elements of
crime control influence crime opportunity holds important
implications for the
development of prevention strategies. I then examine the
environmental
criminology concept of crime script analysis (CSA) as a useful way
of unpacking the
28
opportunity structures of wildlife crime problems. Ultimately, the
goal of crime
script analysis is to maximise the utility of Situational crime
prevention (SCP)
techniques. Critically, SCP can be seen as the feature of
environmental criminology
that allows criminologists to engage in a direct dialogue with
nature resource
managers through the development of theoretically-based and
evidence informed
prevention strategies. The chapter finishes with a brief
examination SCP and its
application towards wildlife crime problems.
Using the concepts identified in the literature review chapters,
each of the case
studies focuses on one element of crime opportunity (see Fig1.2).
The first case
study, The Motivated Offender: modeling offender target selection
for illegal fishing
in marine protected areas, extends environmental criminology
theories and
techniques (distance decay and crime pattern theory) to examine the
travel
patterns of recreational poachers in the GBRMP. The objective of
this study is to
answer the first overall research question: Can the theories and
methods from
environmental criminology and crime analysis be used to advance
the
understanding of poacher behavior in the GBRMP? The aim of the
study was to
model the influence of distance on how far offenders are prepared
to travel on land
to access the GBRMP, and then how far they travel to poach. To
undertake this
examination of offender target selection I formulate the following
research
questions:
RQ 1. To what extent does distance from offenders’ residence, on
land,
to a suitable GBRMP access point influence offender target
selection?
RQ 2. To what extent does distance over water, from a GBRMP
access
node to the poaching activity zone, determine offender target
selection?
The data for this study were official poaching incident reports
provided by the
GBRMPA FMCU. The results demonstrate that distance is a key feature
of offender
target selection, reflecting the established environmental
criminology concept of
distance decay. The analysis also reveals a significant
relationship between
individual no-take zones and regional population areas.
Understanding how
poachers select target MNPs and where they come from has
important
implications for the design of prevention management strategies. I
identify a
29
number of SCP techniques relevant to these findings and discuss the
applicability
of a nodal-oriented approach to wildlife crime prevention.
The fifth chapter and second case study, The Suitable Place- Risky
Facilities:
analysis of illegal recreational fishing in the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park, builds
on from the role of distance in determining how offenders select
targets and asks
what are the features of individual zones that make them more
attractive to
poachers than others. The objective of this study is to answer the
second overall
research question: Can the theories and methods from environmental
criminology
and crime analysis be used to identify the features of no-take MNPs
that make
them attractive to poachers? The study extends criminological
interpretations of
risky facilities to focus on how illegal fishing is concentrated in
a small number of
places in the GBRMP. To achieve this, I examine the spatial
patterns of recreational
poaching in all 161 no-take MNPs in the GBRMP by addressing two
research
questions:
RQ 1. Does poaching activity concentrate in a small number of
no-take
MNPs in line with broader observations of the spatial distribution
of
crime (80/20 rule)?
RQ 2. Can factors associated with opportunity (offender, target and
place
management) be used to identify characteristics of spatial risk
associated
with poaching in the GBRMP?
Testing the applicability of the general hypothesis of risky
facilities – that crime
is highly concentrated among certain people, places and things –
the results
demonstrate that the spatial distribution of poaching in the GBRMP
reflects
previous environmental criminology studies which, show that crime
is
concentrated in a small number of places. Poaching risk increases
in no-take zones
that share a number of homogenous characteristics, which also
attract legitimate
routine activity. The findings lend support to the emerging
environmental
criminology literature examining wildlife crime through the lens of
opportunity.
In the final case study, chapter six, The Vulnerable Target -
Space-Time Patterns
of Poaching Risk: Using the near-repeat hypothesis to inform
compliance
enforcement in marine protected areas, I extend the spatial risk
analysis from the
30
previous chapters and examine both the temporal and space-time
(contagion
effect) risks of poaching in the GBRMP. The objective of this study
is to examine
the final overall research question: Can the theories and methods
from
environmental criminology and crime analysis be used identify
patterns of target
vulnerability for poaching in the GBRMP? As discussed above, PAs
represent an
important management tool for biological conservation, however,
their benefits
are often undermined by a limited ability to ensure effective
compliance outcomes.
Recent studies reveal that poaching exhibits both spatial and
temporal
characteristics similar to those observed in traditional forms of
crime. With an
emphasis on improving the effectiveness of patrol effort, this
study uses poaching
data from the GBRMP to identify the presence of predictive
spatio-temporal (near-
repeat) patterns of poaching. The findings reveal near-repeat
poaching chains up
to 9000m in the first seven days of an initial poaching event,
which diminish to
1000m in the second week. In addition, all near-repeat hotspots
were located
within broader poaching hotspots, indicating temporal stability of
recreational
poaching in the GBRMP.
understanding poaching and, as a consequence, provides managers
with a
potentially powerful tool for predicting risk and allocating
resources. As done in
the previous case studies, I discuss the implications for
management of the
findings through a SCP framework. In so doing, each of the studies
have sought to
apply aspects of environmental criminology theory and crime
analysis techniques
to gain a better understanding of poaching in the GBRMP. Applying
SCP techniques
to the findings, provides a framework for designing theoretically
grounded and
evidence-based compliance management strategies. The final case
study explores
how this approach can be fully incorporated into the design of a
prevention-based
compliance management strategy.
Chapter seven, Bringing it all together: using crime scripts and
the situational
crime prevention framework to inform compliance management
approaches to
poaching in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia, explores
the final overall
research question aimed at developing a process for designing
effective
compliance management strategies using the GBRMP in Australia as a
case study.
31
In this chapter I apply crime script analysis to an example of
poaching in one high-
risk no-take zone (MNP-23-1168) in the southern GBRMP. Using the
findings from
each of the previous case studies, I identify the stepwise
processes for each stage of
the crime script and the involvement of offenders and handlers,
targets and
guardians, and places and managers. The chapter concludes with the
formulation
of prevention-based management strategies specific to the poaching
problem in
this no-take MNP through the SCP matrix. A number of examples are
provided
throughout the chapter where the GBRMPA compliance unit has applied
SCP
techniques to the poaching problem in this zone.
Chapter eight, Discussion and conclusion: Implication for theory,
methods and
practice, I begin by summarising the contribution that my research
makes to the
emerging wildlife crime literature that applies environmental
criminology theory
and methodologies to improve understanding and identify potential
solutions for
compliance management in PAs. Using incident data for poaching
events, my
research demonstrates that recreational poaching in no-take zones
in the GBRMP
displays similar spatial and temporal patterns as those observed in
traditional
forms of crime such as robbery or burglary. This research helps
fill knowledge
gaps in both the application of environmental criminology and crime
analysis
techniques towards wildlife crime and compliance management
practice in a large
MPA.
32
MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS IN PROTECTED AREAS
2.1 Introduction
Protected Areas (PAs) enable the activation of spatially
representative
management tools that impose various levels of protection over an
area for
conservation purposes. The effectiveness of the protected area
depends on
compliance management arrangements and the capacity of the managing
authority
to reduce harm by preventing illegal activities such as poaching.
Compliance
management in PAs is focused on controlling activity within a
defined spatial
boundary (ie. allowable activity) and preventing activities deemed
illegal within
the regulated zone (eg. illegal fishing). To this end, it can be
argued that
prevention is the primary objective of compliance management in
PAs, and that
place-based management strategies that frame compliance problems
within a
spatially bounded context (what, when, where and how) can assist in
achieving
positive conservation outcomes.
Drawing on the established field of environmental criminology,
scholars
concerned with wildlife crime problems contend that just as with
traditional forms
of crime, illegal activities such as poaching exhibit identifiable
spatial and temporal
patterns (Lemieux, 2014; Moreto & Pires, 2018). Framed within
the context of
opportunity, this research has demonstrated that a wide variety of
wildlife crime
problems exhibit patterns formed by the convergence of motivated
offenders and
vulnerable targets at suitable places. The convergence of these
elements of
opportunity is critical to understanding crime and the subsequent
implementation
of meaningful crime control strategies (Felson & Clarke, 1998).
For environmental
criminologists, concentrations of crime, commonly referred to as
crime hotspots,
represent the actualisation of spatial and temporal points of
convergence between
these elements of criminal opportunity. While on the surface crime
hotspots can
demonstrate heightened risks at specific locations, examining the
underlying
opportunity structures that enable the formation of crime
concentrations can
provide a more refined understanding of specific types of illegal
activity. In the
33
context of wildlife crime, Hill (2015) argues that hotspots of
poaching activity in
PAs emerge from complex biological-social system that determine
how, when and
where willing offenders engage with their environment.
The purpose of this chapter is to, a) place environmental
criminology’s
contribution within the biological conservation agenda, and b)
examine its
relevance to the study of wildlife crime problems, specifically
recreational
poaching in the GBRMP. I begin by emphasising the critical
importance of social
science in conservation management and briefly explore why its
relevance has
remained subjugated to the physical sciences. I then explore the
role of
criminology within the conservation agenda, beginning with an
outline of green
criminology, the emergence of the conservation criminology
framework and finally
the emerging contribution of environmental criminology for
understanding
wildlife crime problems. The second part of this chapter then
examines whether
the claim made by environmental criminologists, that opportunity
represents a key
driver for crime, is applicable to illegal recreational fishing in
the GBRMP. Three
elements of crime opportunity, offenders, targets and places, will
be explored in
terms of their theoretical underpinnings, their applicability to
wildlife crime
problems and specific relevance to understanding illegal
recreational fishing in no-
take MPAs in the GBRMP.
2.2 The relationship between the social and natural world in
biological
conservation
Conservation is as much about people as it is about the
preservation of
biodiversity (Mascia et al., 2003). The idea of the human-natural
system is not new
in conservation where the coupling of ecological and human dynamics
has been
described as one of its most important intellectual developments
(Kareiva &
Marvier, 2012). Despite this, the conservation community has
typically turned to
biological science to help inform policy and practice (Bennett et
al., 2017) and
there remains a lack of agreement about the place of social
dimensions in
conservation management (Sandbrook et al., 2013). As a result, for
many
conservationists the natural and social worlds remain isolated from
one another
(Gore, 2011). Conservation policy and practice however remains an
expression of
34
human values (Kareiva & Marvier, 2012). For example, PAs are
socially
constructed regulatory environments based on prevailing social
norms and values
which have both intended and unintended consequences for human
behavior
(Mascia et al., 2003). The human-natural system cannot be separated
and there
are human dimensions in all aspects of conservation.
The development of interdisciplinary approaches to conservation
represents an
opportunity to incorporate cultural, social and political processes
with ecological
systems in policy and practice (Moreto, 2017). Gore (2011) claims
that the
development of an empirical and interdisciplinary approach to
conservation may
provide useful insights into often complex ‘wicked problems’
(Rittle & Webber,
1973) observed within the human-natural system. To this point Gore
(2011)
posits that, a scientific understanding of human behavior is
critical for effective
conservation practice and to improve humans’ ability to predict and
adapt to
environmental change (Gore, 2011:659). Despite often being
overlooked as
relevant to conservation management (for example see Bennett et
al., 2017), one
social science discipline well positioned to realise its
interdisciplinary potential
with the biological sciences is the field of criminology (Gibbs et
al., 2010). Indeed,
there is a growing body of criminological research applying
empirical
methodologies and underpinned by established theory, examining the
role of
human behavior specifically in the area of wildlife crime (Kurland
et al., 2017).
2.3 The case for applying criminological perspectives to
compliance
management in protected areas
Environmental crime represents a serious global problem that
undermines the
objectives of biological conservation. As with other aspects of
conservation, the
inability of policy makers to incorporate the human-natural
dynamics of
environmental crime into practice, has led to the serious abuse of
environmental
regulations, where criminals profit from the destruction of the
environment
leaving many people impoverished (Musing et al., 2019).
Environmental crimes
range from the illegal dumping of e-waste, industrial scale
negligence, and wildlife
crime incorporating the illegal take of flora and fauna (poaching)
and the illegal
trade of wildlife products (eg. ivory). The impacts of such crimes
cannot be
35
overstated. At the global scale, the illegal trade in wildlife is
estimated to be worth
$US7 – $US23 billion, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)
fishing $US11 -
$US30 billion, and illegal logging a staggering $US30 - $US100
billion (Kahler &
Gore, 2012). As a result, environmental crime has become highly
attractive to
organized crime syndicates leading to wide scale corruption (Musing
et al., 2019)
and the removal of valuable socio-economic resources from the
world’s most
vulnerable people (Kahler & Gore, 2012). To date, two
criminological perspectives
have dominated wildlife crime research; green criminology and
environmental
criminology (Moreto & Pires, 2018).
2.3.1 Green Criminology
Green criminology (Lynch, 1990) appeared in the 1990’s and early
2000’s in
response to the emerging global conservation agenda (e.g. the
United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de
Janeiro in
1992, and the conspicuous absence of criminological interest in
environmental
crime. At its core, green criminology refers to the examination of
environmental
harms, laws and regulations undertaken by criminologists (White,
2008). Green
criminologists view environmental crime through a political economy
lens and
modernists conceptions of power, control and disadvantage (Moreto
& Pires,
2018). For example, in an effort to provide a theoretical framework
for green
criminology, Lynch & Stretsky (2003) examine environmental
harms through the
prism of the social construction of crime, corporate deconstruction
and
subsequent reconstruction of what it means to be green. This
perspective critically
questions the normalization of environmental harms in particular
circumstances.
For example regulatory guidelines permit companies to release
carcinogenic
byproducts into waterways exposing people and ecosystems to risk
while
remaining a responsible corporate citizen (Lynch & Stretsky,
2003). Within the
context of power relations, the authors draw on five perspectives
that underpin
green criminology: environmental justice, ecofeminism, ecomarxism,
deep ecology
and social ecology (Lynch & Stretsky, 2003). Critics argue that
such perspectives
provide too narrow a focus on the cause of environmental crimes
while ignoring
others, encouraging solutions that are improbable (i.e. social
revolution) at the
expense of more practical strategies (Gibbs et al., 2010).
Moreover, detractors of
36
this perspective contend that engagement with the term ‘green’
manifestly views
environmental harms within a polarized domain of cause, effect and
importantly
the formulation of potential solutions (Halsey, 2004). To this end,
Halsey
(2004:835) reasons that improving socio-ecological relations cannot
be achieved
through segmenting the world into polar opposites, but rather by
developing ways
of thinking-acting which subvert binary modes of thought. Such an
approach is
more in line with the objectives of biodiversity conservation and
the objectives of
building strategies, which incorporate human dimensions within
conservation
management.
2.3.2 Conservation criminology
In response to criticisms aimed at the narrowness of the green
criminology
perspective, Gibbs and colleagues (2010) argued that in order to be
more relevant,
green criminology needed to take on a more interdisciplinary
approach to
environmental crime problems. The authors propose a framework
for
conservation criminology that examines environmental crimes through
the lens of
criminology, natural resource management (NRM) and risk science
(Gibbs et al.,
2010). By integrating NRM with criminology, the framework
acknowledges that
criminologists are not necessarily familiar with conservation
policy and practice,
and that in order to become policy relevant the beneficiaries of
their analysis (ie.
the conservation community) need to be integrated into the design
of management
relevant strategies (Gore, 2017). To this end Gibbs and colleagues
(2010:133)
state:
Criminologist are knowledgeable about the legal system, but are
not
trained to scientifically assess threats to the natural
environment. Thus,
criminologists could provide information on the circumstances
under
which legal versus other tools may be most effective while
natural
resource scientists offer insight into the impact of various
stimuli on
natural resources and ecosystems. Similarly, risk scholars
provide
established tools to assess the risk to natural resources and
humans.
37
Figure 2.1 The conservation criminology framework (Gibb et al.,
2010)
In the development of the conservation criminology framework, Gibbs
and
colleagues (2010) purposefully avoided formulating a singular
definition inviting
further scholarship with the goal of building a typology from the
ground up (Gibbs
et al., 2010). To date much of this scholarship has evolved from an
environmental
criminology perspective. With an emphasis on the proximal causes of
crime, as
opposed to the dispositional focus of green the criminological
perspective,
environmental criminology shares the same policy relevant
objectives as
conservation criminology, leading to the embrace of environmental
criminology
theory within the conservation criminology framework (Gore, 2017;
Kahler &
Gore, 2012; Moreto & Pires, 2018).
2.4 Understanding wildlife crime through the lens of environmental
criminology
Environmental criminology emerged from the study of the geography
of
crime and has increasingly become dominated by opportunity-based
theories
(Vandeviver & Bernasco, 2017). These theories, the routine
activity approach
(Cohen & Felson, 1979), rational choice theory (Cornish &
Clarke, 1987) and the
geometric theory of crime (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981),
examine crime
events in the context of the immediate situation in which they
occur,
emphasizing the critical involvement that both the social and
physical
environment play in bringing together offenders and targets in
space and time.
Conservation Criminology
Management
38
Indeed, at a fundamental level, environmental criminologists posit
that crime is
interconnected within broader social patterns and the physical
characteristics
of urban areas (Weisburd, 2015), and in the case of wildlife crime,
those found
within the natural world.
2.4.1 Routine activity approach
In their seminal contribution to the environmental criminology
literature,
Cohen and Felson (1979) introduced the routine activity approach to
explain crime
patterns across the US at the time. The authors surmised that
criminal opportunity
presents itself within the routine activity of everyday life,
through the spatial and
temporal convergence of willing offenders, vulnerable targets and
suitable places
(Cohen & Felson, 1979). Cohen and Felson, (1979) contend that,
human ecological
theory facilitates an investigation into the way in which social
structure produces
this convergence, hence allowing illegal activities to feed upon
the legal activities of
everyday life (Cohen & Felson, 1979:588). As such, crime events
are born from
opportunity within the routine and structured activity in which
willing offenders
and vulnerable targets find themselves.
2.4.2 Rational choice theory
The rational choice perspective seeks to explain how people make
decisions to
undertake criminal activity when they encounter such opportunities
(Cornish &
Clarke, 1987). From this perspective, offenders are willing and
rational actors who
consider the risks and rewards of criminal activity, typically
choosing to maximise
their benefits while minimizing their efforts. As such, offenders
will generally not
deviate far from routine social patterns and the constraints of the
physical urban
environment to commit a crime. Indeed, the greatest rewards for
lowest risk and
effort expended exist within crime opportunities that present
themselves within
the routine patterns of everyday social life (Cornish & Clarke,
2017).
2.4.3 Crime pattern theory
pattern theory (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981; Brantingham
& Brantingham,
1995) argues that crime is a function of routine activity and
rational choices where
offenders seek out criminal opportunities within areas that they
become familiar
39
with through their routine travel patterns. For example, examining
burglar target
selection in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Australia,
Townsley et al.,
(2014) found that offending is directly influenced by the (near)
distance from an
offender’s home, the availability of vulnerable targets and the
total number of
targets. Ratcliffe (2006) argues that the distance from home
influences crime
patterns because offenders are more comfortable offending in
familiar places, and
the further offenders move away from their home areas, the more
likely they are to
attract negative attention. Reid et al., (2014) posit that the path
(journey to crime)
taken by offenders between place of residence and established crime
attractors,
such as shopping centres, creates familiar spaces and increased
crime rates along
these routes. To this end, crime patterns can be seen as constructs
of the
environmental situations, or opportunities, in which potential
offenders find
themselves. I return to the important notion of journey to crime in
the discussion
on place below.
For environmental criminologists, opportunity is the most important
driver of
crime (Felson & Clarke, 1998; Clarke, 2012). Simply put, a
crime cannot occur in
the absence of opportunity. To reinforce the central role of
opportunity in crime,
proponents of this position ask their detractors to consider
scenarios where all
forms of crime control have been removed. For example:
Suppose all situational controls were abandoned: no locks, no
custom
controls, cash left for parking in an open pot for occasional
collection,
no library checkouts, no baggage screening at airports, no ticket
checks
at train stations, no traffic lights, etc. Would there be no change
in the
volume of crime and disorder? (Tilley and Laycock, 2002:31).
We presume that the answer to this question is that there would
most likely be
an increase in crime as a result of the increased opportunity
available to would be
offenders. Opportunity then becomes central to explaining crime, as
Clarke
(2017:287) points out:
Opportunity plays a part in every form of crime, even
carefully
planned crimes such as bank robbery and terrorism.
40
Criminally disposed individuals will commit a greater number
of
crimes if they encounter more criminal opportunities.
Regularly encountering such opportunities could lead these
individuals to seek even more opportunities.
Individuals without pre-existing dispositions can be drawn
into
criminal behaviour by a proliferation of criminal
opportunities.
Generally law-abiding individuals can be drawn into
committing
specific forms of crime if they regularly encounter easy
opportunities for these crimes.
The more opportunities for crime that exists, the more crime
there
will be.
Reducing opportunities for specific forms of crime will reduce
the
overall amount of crime.
2.4.5 The opportunity structure of crime
As Clarke (2017) points out, if opportunity is a cause of crime
then it follows
that reducing opportunities should reduce the overall rate of
crime. The question
then becomes, what is opportunity? Environmental criminologists
argue that
crime opportunity has a defined structure, and that in order for a
crime to occur
three elements of opportunity need to come together, being; a)
willing offenders, b)
vulnerable targets and, c) a suitable places (Felson, 2017).
41
Figure 2.2 An example of the crime opportunity triangle adapted
from Eck (2003) for poaching in the GBRMP.
Figure 2.2 represents a common way of conceptualizing the
relationship
between the elements that together create crime opportunity adapted
to for
poaching in the GBRMP. With the crime opportunity situated in the
middle of the
triangle, the model demonstrates the connected nature of each of
the elements of
crime. For example, in order for poaching to occur, a motivated
offender (fisher)
needs to locate a vulnerable target (fish) in a suitable place
(fish habitat in a no-
take MNP). It follows that removing one element of the triangle
disrupts the
process and removes the opportunity for the crime to be
undertaken.
Environmental criminologists contend that this has important
implications for the
control of crime. Indeed, developing an understanding of the
opportunity
structures for specific crime types can by used to design and
implement proactive
and prevention focused enforcement strategies (Clarke, 2012). I
explore the
application of reducing opportunity as a means to prevent and
control crime in the
next chapter.
42
2.5 The opportunity structure for illegal recreational fishing in
the GBRMP –
motivated offenders, vulnerable targets and suitable places
2.5.1 The motivated offender
Environmental criminologists study crime under the assumption that
anyone
can be a motivated offender if they are presented with a crime
opportunity and the
rewards outweigh the risks. The focus is not on offender
characteristics such as
needs, emotions or background, rather the theory focuses on the
situational
context and it is assumed that anyone could take on the role of
offender given the
right circumstances. For this research project, the cohort of
potential offenders
come from the broader Queensland recreational fishing community.
Recreational
fishing is an extremely popular leisure activity in Queensland with
a participation
rate of approximately 950,000 people or 18% of the state population
(DAF, 2019).
This figure has increased by around 300,000 since 2013 indicating a
significant
growth in this sector (DAF, 2019). The highest rates of
participation by population
are observed in communities along the Queensland coast adjacent to
the GBRMP.
For example, approximately 30% the Cairns population fished
recreationally in
2018, nearly twice the rate of participation as reported in 2013
(DAF, 2019).
While the uptake of vessel ownership has coincided with the
popularity of
recreational fishing, only a small proportion of fishing effort
(7%) occurs in waters
more than 5 km offshore (Webley et al., 2015). The incident data
used for this
research shows that recreational poaching tends to occur in no-take
zones at
greater distances than this, indicating that the actual pool of
potential offenders
represents a significantly smaller sub-set of the recreational
fishing community.
Until now, there has been no criminological research examining the
travel
patterns of wildlife crime offenders from their place of residence
to the point of the
poaching event. Given the centrality of the offender within
environmental
criminology theory, this represents a critical gap within the
wildlife crime
literature. If illegal recreational fishing offenders in the GBRMP
hold true to the
established environmental criminological findings associated with
offender
behavior, we would expect to observe a near proximal relationship
between their
home and the poaching location. If so, we would further expect to
see an
association between coastal population centres and the nearest
no-take MNPs. To
43
this end, I use the established environmental criminology notion of
distance decay
to examine offender target selection in the GBRMP in the first case
study chapter
(chapter 4).
The availability of vulnerable targets is central to opportunity
theory.
Moreover, environmental criminology theory tells us that crime
patterns are the
product of embedded social, economic and political factors that
underpin routine
activity structures that enable the convergence of willing
offenders and vulnerable
targets. In the case of recreational poaching in the GBRMP, targets
are represented
by sought after fish species such as coral trout and red throat
emperor (GBRMPA,
2019a). Fish species targeted by recreational fishers in the GBRMP
vary from
region to region and depends on the dominate habitats within these
areas. For
example, in the Cairns region, the most attractive species for
recreational fishers is
the common coral trout (GBRMPA, 2019a). In other regions such as
Townsville
and Rockhampton, Spanish mackerel is the most commonly reported
fish species
targeted by recreational fishers. Further south in the Gladstone
region, species
including Red throat emperor and cod feature highly in reported
catch records
(GBRMPA, 2019a). In general, each of these species are predator
fish and targeted
for their repetition as quality eating fish. In the GBRMP, the
density of many of
these target fish species is significantly higher in no-take zones
compared to areas
open to fishing (GBRMPA, 2019a).
Environmental criminologists concerned with wildlife crime problems
have
begun to reveal that poachers favour certain species over others,
in line with
observations within traditional forms of crime. For example, the
CRAVED model
(concealable, removable, available, valuable, enjoyable,
disposable) (Clarke, 1999)
used by environmental criminologists to understand why some
products are more
desired than others, has also been used to study targeted fish
species in illegal,
unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) (Petrossian & Clarke,
2014) and the
illegal parrot trade in Central and South America (Pires &
Petrossian, 2016). The
notions of repeat and near repeat victimization have not yet
examined in the
context of wildlife crime. Given that victimization has been
described as the most
important factor determining future risk (Pease & Farrell,
2017), this represents
44
another critical gap within the wildlife crime literature. With
this in mind, the
third and final case study in this thesis (chapter 6) examines
whether or not near
repeat patterns exist for poaching in the GBRMP. Based on
environmental
criminology theory, we would expect to see both repeat and near
repeat patterns
as poachers seek out vulnerable targets in suitable places.
2.5.5 The suitable place
For the purposes of this study, place refers to the 344,000 km2
GBRMP managed
by the Australian Government agency, the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park
Authority (GBRMPA). More specifically, the places within which I
examine the
patterns and trends of poaching through the lens of environmental
criminology are
the 161 no-take Marine National Park (MNP) zones that make up
approximately
33% of the Marine Park. Just as ecology of places vary in the
urban, so too does the
ecology of each MNP. For example, coral reef habitats within MNPs
can vary
greatly around coral species, abundance, depth and slope of the
seafloor (GBRMPA,
2019a). In general, fish species such as those targeted by
recreational fishers, are
only present in particular habitats. For example, as indicated by
their name, the
Common coral trout live within and are dependent upon coral rich
habitats
(GBRMPA, 2019a). The main threats to such species are due to
bottom-up impacts
associated with habitat loss and top down impacts from overfishing.
Research has
demonstrated that well managed MNPs protect coral trout from such
threats and
as a result their abundance in no-take MNPs is twice that of areas
open to fishing
(GBRMPA, 2019a). It follows that well-managed MNPs with suitable
habitats for
target fish species are attractive places for would be offenders
who choose to take
advantage of lapses in guardianship.
Within the wildlife crime literature, there is a growing body of
research
demonstrating that poaching activity is often concentrated similar
to that observed
in traditional forms of crime. For example, studying elephant
poaching in the
Tsavo East National Park in Kenya, Maingi and collegues (2012)
found the activity
to be concentrated around bodies of water and near roads. Likewise,
Brill and
Raemaekers (2013) were able to demonstrate that abalone poaching in
the Table
Mountain National Park was also spatially clustered. While
identifying such
poaching hotspots is useful, perhaps more important to understand
is the
45
underlying ecology that attract both vulnerable targets and willing
offenders to
these places. Using the environmental concept of risky facilities –
that crime
concentration among groups of homogenous facilities may be the
outgrowth of
complex dynamic interactions among individuals – offenders, targets
and place
managers (Eck, Clarke & Guerette, 2007:225) – the second case
study in this thesis
(chapter 5) examines whether poaching in the GBRMP is concentrated
in a small
number of places, and if so whether such places share a set of
common risk
features that enable poaching opportunities.
Fundamental to the environmental perspective of crime is the
established
empirical observation that most crime is concentrated in a small
number of places.
Studies across a wide range of crime types consistently provide
strong evidence
that crime is heavily concentrated (Weisburd, 2015). Studying crime
data across
eight cities, Weisburd (2015) demonstrated that crime
concentrations exist within
very small spatial bandwidths in both small and large cities.
Weisburd (2015) goes
on to argue that while the empirical research clearly shows that
crime is
concentrated, the inconsistent unit of analysis applied to these
studies makes it
difficult to draw strong conclusions. In an effort to make crime
patterns more
scalable, Weisburd (2015:138) proposed a law of crime concentration
- that for a
defined measure of crime at a specific microgeographic unit, the
concentration of
crime will fall within a narrow bandwidth of percentage for a
defined cumulative
proportion of crime. The results of Weisburd’s (2015) study showed
that across all
cities there was a small bandwidth of crime concentration, where on
average 50%
of crime occurred in just 4% of street segments, and 25% of crime
concentrated in
less than 1.5%. The axiom that most crime is concentrated in a
small number of
places holds important implications for both law enforcement and
social
intervention strategies. Furthermore, the observation that crime is
concentrated
and that patterns of crime can be interpreted through the lens of
opportunity
underpins the notion of a criminality of place. In other words, why
does crime
concentrate, what are the characteristics of places that observe
high rates of crime
and how can this knowledge be used to develop effective crime
prevention
strategies?
46
Environmental criminologists have consistently demonstrated that
crime tends
to be concentrated in time (Ratcliffe, 2006; Vandeviver &
Bernasco, 2017) and
space (Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger, 1989; Weisburd, 2015), as well
as on a small
number of people (Grove & Farrell, 2012; Pease, 1998), places
(Eck, et al., 2007)
and products (Clarke, 1999). The observation that crime
concentrates a