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