Conservation Criminology E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 473

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

This important new text introduces conservation criminology as the interdisciplinary study of environmental exploitation and risks at the intersection of human and natural systems. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, the book enhances understanding of the various human and organizational behaviors that pose risks to the environment, humans, and drive conservation crime. As human population growth, global market economies, climate change, deforestation, and illegal exploitation of natural resources continue to increase, academic research from numerous disciplines is needed to address these challenges.

Conservation Criminology promotes thinking about how unsustainable natural resources exploitation is a cause and a consequence of social conflict. Case studies profiled in the book demonstrate this cause and effect type situation, as well as innovative approaches for reducing risks to people and the environment. This text encourages readers to consider how humans behave in response to environmental risks and the various mechanisms that constitute effective and ineffective approaches to enforcement of wildlife crimes, including environmental and conservation policy. Case studies from the USA, Latin America, Africa, and Asia highlight corruption in conservation, global trade in electronic waste, illegal fishing, illegal logging, human-wildlife conflict, technology and space, water insecurity, wildlife disease, and wildlife poaching. Taken together, chapters expand the reader’s perspective and employ tools to understand and address environmental crimes and risks, and to provide novel empirical evidence for positive change.  With established contributors providing interdisciplinary and global perspectives, this book establishes a foundation for the emerging field of conservation criminology.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

Notes on Contributors

Preface

Acknowledgments

1 Global Risks, Conservation, and Criminology

1.1 Conservation Crimes Are a Global Problem

1.2 Three Foundational Fields of Conservation Criminology

1.3 Foundation 1: Natural Resource Management and Policy

1.4 Foundation 2: Criminology, Crime Science, and Criminal Justice

1.5 Foundation 3: Risk and Decision Science

1.6 Combining the Three Foundations: Conservation Criminology

1.7 How to “Do” Conservation Criminology

1.8 Roadmap

References

Part I: Conceptual Advancements in Conservation Criminology

2 Conservation Crime Science

2.1 Exploitation of Natural Resources in a Globalized World

2.2 The Limits of Criminology for Conservation Practice

2.3 Overcoming the Limits of Criminology with Crime Science

2.4 State of Knowledge: Conservation Criminology and Conservation Crime Science

2.5 Limitations

2.6 Utility of Using Conservation Crime Science

2.7 Setting Expectations for Conservation Crime Science

2.8 Conclusion

References

3 Deterrence, Legitimacy, and Wildlife Crime in Protected Areas

3.1 Wildlife Crime in Protected Areas

3.2 Criminological and Criminal Justice Perspectives on Deterrence

3.3 Empirical Findings

3.4 Limitations with Deterrence‐based Approaches in Protected Areas

3.5 Legitimacy and Its Role in Establishing Normative and Instrumental Forms of Compliance in Conservation

3.6 Alternatives to Deterrence‐Based Approaches

3.7 Future Considerations

References

Part II: Case Studies and Examples

4 Governance for Conservation Risks and Crime

4.1 Defining Governance

4.2 General Concepts of Governance for Conservation Risks

4.3 Strict Enforcement by Official Authorities and Governments

4.4 International Movement of Electronic Waste

4.5 Regulatory Efforts to Limit E‐waste Trade

4.6 People‐Centered Approaches Focused Local Livelihoods

4.7 Limits to Enforcement Actions in Chiquibul National Park, Belize

4.8 Limits of Alternative Livelihood Strategies

4.9 Unintended Effects and Collateral Impacts of Conservation Governance

4.10 Conclusion

References

5 Gaining Compliance and Cooperation with Regulated Wildlife Harvest

5.1 Importance of Compliance and Cooperation

5.2 What Drives Violations of Natural Resource Regulations?

5.3 Unintentional Violations

5.4 Intentional Violations

5.5 Violations Motivated by Direct Personal Gains

5.6 Violations Motivated by Indirect Personal Gains

5.7 Violations and Instrumental Judgments of Government Policy and Regulators

5.8 Violations and Normative Influence

5.9 What Drives Cooperation?

5.10 Considerations for Increasing Compliance and Cooperation

5.11 Conclusion

References

6 Corruption and Organized Crime in Conservation

6.1 Connecting Corruption and Organized Crime to Conservation

6.2 Case Study on Abalone Poaching

6.3 Case Study on Illegal Trade in Russian Raptors

6.4 A Policy‐Oriented Discussion of Solutions

6.5 Conclusion

References

7 Problem‐Oriented Policing for Natural Resource Conservation

7.1 What is Problem‐Oriented Policing?

7.2 The Opportunity for POP in Natural Resource Management

7.3 A Case Study of Australian Commonwealth Fisheries Management

7.4 Adapting POP for More Effective Conservation

7.5 Conclusion

References

8 Exploring the Sociology of Wildlife Tourism, Global Risks, and Crime

8.1 Wildlife Tourism

8.2 Conservation Criminology and Wildlife Tourism

8.3 Theoretical Insights on Wildlife Tourism from Sociology

8.4 Elephant Tourism and Crime in Thailand

8.5 Conclusion

References

Part III: Models and Innovations

9 Technological Innovations Supporting Wildlife Crime Detection, Deterrence, and Enforcement

9.1 Challenges for Wildlife Crime Detection and Enforcement

9.2 Technological Advances in Conservation

9.3 Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART)

9.4 Conservation Drones

9.5 Mobile Device Applications

9.6 Conservation Forensics

9.7 Conclusion

References

10 PAWS: Game Theory Based Protection Assistant for Wildlife Security

10.1 Applying Game Theoretic Analysis to Poaching

10.2 Modeling Human Behavior to Create Optimal Patrol Strategies

10.3 Domain Feature Modeling

10.4 The Genesis of PAWS from Synthesizing Conservation, Computer science, and Criminology

10.5 The PAWS Model

10.6 PAWS‐Learn

10.7 Discussion

References

11 Estimating Poaching Opportunity and Potential

11.1 Understanding Attitudes and Behaviors of Realized and Potential Poachers

11.2 Social Psychological Approaches for Understanding the Potential to Poach

11.3 Case Study on Wolf poaching

11.4 Results

11.5 Theoretical Considerations on the Causes of Poaching

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 02

Table 2.1 Top 10 research areas and journals based on a search of Web of Science on articles (n = 319) related to wildlife poaching from the years 1990 to 2014.

Table 2.2 A description of peer‐reviewed literature on wildlife poaching published between 1990‐2014 (n = 93).

Table 2.3 Characterizing the differences between research on wildlife poaching under conservation criminology versus conservation crime science (adapted from Clarke, 2004).

Chapter 05

Table 5.1 Components of resource management uncertainty. See Nichols

et al.

(1995) and Hunter and Runge (2004).

Table 5.2 Policy mechanisms identified by Bemelmans‐Videc

et al.

(2003), and the nature of their influence on compliance and cooperation.

Chapter 06

Table 6.1 Characterizing the factors influencing the existence of black markets and the involvement of organized crime.

Chapter 07

Table 7.1 Potential Compliance Risks in Australia’s Commonwealth Fisheries.

Chapter 10

Table 10.1 Notations used in this chapter.

List of Illustrations

Chapter 01

Figure 1.1 Conservation criminology is an interdisciplinary and applied paradigm for understanding programs and policies associated with global conservation risks. By integrating natural resources management, risk and decision science, and criminology, conservation criminology‐based approaches ideally result in improved environmental resilience, biodiversity conservation, and secure human livelihoods.

Chapter 02

Figure 2.1 A conservationist’s opinion on the sub‐disciplines that study crime, criminal behavior and the criminal justice system.

Figure 2.2 The total number of peer‐reviewed journal articles published between 1990 and 2014 detected by the Web of Science in January 2015 using the terms “poach*wildlife.”

Chapter 07

Figure 7.1 Incident‐based policing conceptual diagram.

Figure 7.2 Problem‐oriented policing conceptual diagram.

Figure 7.3 The SARA model of problem‐oriented policing.

Figure 7.4 The problem analysis triangle.

Figure 7.5 Twenty‐five techniques of situational crime prevention.

Figure 7.6 National compliance structure for Australia’s Commonwealth Fisheries.

Chapter 08

Figure 8.1 A poster in Bangkok Airport, Thailand aimed at informing Asian tourists about the illegality of ivory souvenirs.

Figure 8.2 A brochure for a “be a mahout” program available at hotels in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Figure 8.3 A juvenile Asian elephant caught in a pit trap in Myanmar. © TRAFFIC

Figure 8.4 A trade route map of elephant trafficking in Thailand and Myanmar. © TRAFFIC

Chapter 09

Figure 9.1 SMART users in Cambodia and Nigeria. © Wildlife Conservation Society

Figure 9.2 Conservation drones can detect wildlife crimes. © Conservation Drones

Figure 9.3 Decision‐tree apps facilitate identification through a step‐wise process: (a) app product interface, (b) question interface, (c) and (d) matching animal interface. © Wildlife Alert

Chapter 10

Figure 10.1 Snare poaching in Queen Elizabeth National Park.

Figure 10.2 PAWS overview.

Figure 10.3 Illustrative example for PAWS game model. Figure 10.3(a) shows an example area that is discretized into four cells, that is, four targets. Figure 10.3(b) shows three possible patrol routes for the example area, each of which starts from the upper left cell (base camp location) and protects two targets. Figure 10.3(c) shows a mixed strategy for the example area when there is only one team of patrollers. The compact representation of the mixed strategy in Figure 10.3(c) is shown in Figure 10.3(d).

Figure 10.4 Strategy convergence simulation. The X‐Axis shows the number of rounds that have elapsed (i.e., the number of interactions between the defender and attacker, and also the number of times a new strategy has been generated). The Y‐Axis compares the generated defender mixed strategy in that round to an “optimal” strategy which is generated from the true distribution of poacher behavior (which, outside of a simulation, isn't known); lower values on the axis indicate that the generated strategy is closer to the optimal strategy, indicating that the learned distribution is of higher quality. The first two lines in the figure correspond to learning a distribution with only one type of data available (only identified or anonymous data, respectively) whereas the last line corresponds to the PAWS‐Learn algorithm (both data types are combined).

Chapter 11

Figure 11.1 (A) Theory for causal connections among a time axis connecting cognitive antecedents preceding the intention to act. And hypothetical (dashed lines) connecting intention to external opportunities and to potential poaching events. External opportunity (the movements and sensory abilities of an animal that bring it into a position or state of vulnerability to poaching) and potential poaching event are probabilistic but influenced by intention in theory. B: We depict a practical application to wolf‐poaching. We replace intention with inclination, which is a construct that combines attitude with intention and draw two samples of respondents to examine external opportunity (see Methods). We combine estimates of each to model the potential to poach a wolf among two samples and several classes of respondents. Note the dotted lines indicate hypothetical interaction between intention and opportunity because strong intentions may lead to preparatory behavior that increases opportunity (lower dashed arrow) but intention may be opportunistic in the sense of awaiting chance events (upper dashed arrow).

Figure 11.2 Wisconsin, wolf range and population density in 2010, and poaching locations 1979–2011.

Figure 11.3 Quantifying the potential to poach for two groups of respondents. Random deer hunters were asked to self‐report encounters with wolves generating the estimate of opportunity whereas pet owners we interviewed had had verified encounters. In both groups capability was estimated from self‐reports of readiness to kill the wolf they encountered. For both groups, inclination was estimated independently from mail‐back surveys of much larger samples done in prior studies reported in online archive (Treves, 2015).

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

iii

iv

v

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

Conservation Criminology

Edited by Meredith L. Gore

Michigan State UniversityUSA

This edition first published 2017 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permision to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Meredith L. Gore to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UKBoschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyThe publisher and the authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every situation. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. The fact that an organization or website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the author or the publisher endorses the information the organization or website may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this works was written and when it is read. No warranty may be created or extended by any promotional statements for this work. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any damages arising herefrom.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication data applied for

ISBN: 9781118935484 (Hardback)

Cover Design: WileyCover Image: (Right Images: Top to bottom) © somnuk krobkum/Gettyimages; © Kate Capture/Shutterstock; (Left Images: Top to bottom) david pearson/Alamy Stock Photo; © bluefern/Gettyimages; (Background) © Przemyslaw Wasilewski/Shutterstock

To Mike, Claire, and Rachel, for your patience, support, and feedback. To Joel and Wendy, for never questioning my path. To Jonah, for teaching me what urgency with optimism can look like.

Notes on Contributors

Dr. Mark A. Axelrod is Associate Professor in Michigan State University’s James Madison College and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. His teaching and research center around comparative and international environmental law and politics, with a particular focus on India. His recent work is published in The Journal of Environment & Development, Environmental Policy & Governance, and the European Journal of International Relations. Mark is also active with the United Planet Faith & Science Initiative, and serves on the editorial board of the journal Global Environmental Politics.

Dr. Christine Browne‐Nuñez received her Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation from the University of Florida, MS in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources from Colorado State University, and BA in Education from the University of Missouri. As a post‐doctoral research associate at the University of Wisconsin‐Madison Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, she applied social science theory and methods to identify predictors of social tolerance of wolves. Christine served the Associate Director of Community‐Based Conservation at the San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research. Currently, as a conservation social scientist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Christine works to build human dimensions capacity in the agency through training, research, and technical support.

Dr. Julia Novak Colwell earned her Ph.D. in Fisheries & Wildlife at Michigan State University (2016) where she also earned her MSc (2013). She is currently Visiting Assistant Professor in the Pennoni Honors College at Drexel University. Her research has focused on the unintended impacts of resource management regulations, particularly pertaining to the fisheries sector in Tamil Nadu, India. Her current research aims to identify how underrepresented segments of the fisherfolk population, particularly women, are affected by management hierarchies and fisheries regulations and how those impacts feedback to influence resource use and resource health.

Dr. Fei Fang received her Ph.D. from the Department of Computer Science at the University of Southern California. She received her bachelor degree from the Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University in July 2011. Her research lies in the field of artificial intelligence and multi‐agent systems, focusing on computational game theory with applications to security and sustainability domains. Her work has won the Deployed Application Award at Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, the Outstanding Paper Award in Computational Sustainability Track at the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. She is the recipient of WiSE Merit Fellowship, and she has been awarded the Meritorious Team Commendation from Commandant of the US Coast Guard and Flag Letter of Appreciation from Vice Admiral. Her work has led to real‐world applications that have fundamentally altered current practices of security resource allocation. Her work on “Protecting Moving Targets with Mobile Resources” has been deployed by the US Coast Guard for protecting the Staten Island Ferry in New York City since April 2013. Her work on designing patrol strategies to combat illegal poaching has lead to the deployment of PAWS application in a conservation area in Southeast Asia for protecting tigers.

Austin Flowers received his B.A. in International Relations from James Madison College at Michigan State University. His research focuses on criminal exploitation growth in the electronic waste trade to find possible deterrence strategies through legislating financial and criminal penalties. He is preparing for law school in the fall of 2017 while investigating entrepreneurial opportunities in electronic waste recycling.

Dr. David Foran is the Director of the Forensic Science Graduate Program at Michigan State University, which was founded in 1947. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, is on the Editorial Board of The Journal of Forensic Sciences, and is court qualified as an expert on both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA profiling. He obtained his PhD in molecular genetics from the University of Michigan, was a post‐doctoral fellow at McGill University in Montreal, and was a research associate at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Dr. Foran’s area of expertise is forensic biology, focusing on human and animal identification using both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. His research has been funded by the National Institutes of Justice, the Technical Support Working Group, the Department of Defense, and other agencies. He and his graduate students aid a variety of local, state, and federal agencies with specialized casework, are advisors to the Michigan Innocence Project, and conduct research on historical cases of broad interest.

Benjamin Ford is a fourth year Ph.D. student of Computer Science at the University of Southern California's Viterbi School of Engineering. He joined the Teamcore research group in August 2013 and is advised by Professor Milind Tambe. Previously, he completed his B.S. and M.S. in Computer Science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth in 2008 and 2010, respectively. After graduation and prior to joining Teamcore, he worked at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, RI as a Software Engineer. Ben's primary research interests are in the application of concepts from the social sciences of Psychology, Criminology, Sociology, and Anthropology to improve the algorithms and solutions of Computer Science. Specifically, he is interested in applying human behavioral models to multi‐agent systems with a large focus on human decision making. Since joining Teamcore, he has also developed an interest in applying Behavioral Game Theory to the Wildlife Conservation domain.

Dr. Jacinta M. Gau is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida. Her research is primarily in policing, with an emphasis on racial issues, police–community relations, procedural justice, and police legitimacy. Her work has appeared in journals such as Justice Quarterly, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Crime and Delinquency, and Journal of Criminal Justice.

Mark C. G. Gibson is a doctoral student at the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. He has an MA in Economics and Environmental Policy from the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins, and a BA in International Relations from the University of Pennsylvania. Prior to starting his PhD program, Mark supported World Wildlife Fund’s on‐the‐ground work to reform Latin American fisheries management, and the Pew Charitable Trusts to advocate for conservation of vulnerable deep‐sea ecosystems globally. His research interests include wildlife and fisheries crime, data‐poor compliance assessment, organizational theory of conservation enforcement, and voluntary compliance drivers.

Dr. Meredith L. Gore is a conservation social scientist whose interdisciplinary research explores relationships between human behavior and the environment. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Fisheries & Wildlife and School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University (MSU). She is a National Academies of Science Jefferson Science Fellow serving as a Senior Science Advisor in the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State. Dr. Gore is a MSU Global Research Fellow and President of the Society for Conservation Biology’s Social Science Working Group. Her research interests focus on community‐based natural resource management and enhancing understanding of risk concepts and their application to biodiversity conservation. Dr. Gore co‐developed the Conservation Criminology research framework and teaching certificate program at MSU; the interdisciplinary approach synthesizes natural resource policy, risk and decision analysis, and crime science. Her leadership in this field has resulted in new scientific insight regarding conservation of species such as white sharks, lemurs, cranes, sea turtles, rhinos, elephants, ploughshare tortoises, double‐crested cormorants, black bears and gray wolves. Dr. Gore received her PhD in Natural Resource Policy and Management from Cornell University, MA in Environment and Resource Policy from George Washington University, and BA in Anthropology and Environmental Studies from Brandeis University. Phi Kappa Phi has recognized Dr. Gore's leadership in interdisciplinary research.

Katherine Groff received her MS from the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University. Under the advisement of Dr. Mark Axelrod, she studied the conflicts between community development and conservation goals in resource management across national borders. Her interests lie in science policy and animal protection, and she currently applies.

Jamie Hogberg earned her MS in Conservation Biology at UW Madison, and is academic staff for the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies’ Environmental Conservation Professional Masters Program. She also directs the Society for Conservation Biology – North America’s biennial North American congress (2016). Her research focuses on human–wolf conflict, management, and policy in the mid western U.S. Her prior work includes avian and tropical conservation in the Western U.S. and South America.

Jessica S. Kahler is a PhD candidate at Michigan State University, researching applied conservation criminology, and an independent consultant currently working to develop community‐based wildlife crime prevention approaches. She has conducted applied, interdisciplinary social science research on wildlife crimes, such as poaching, and facilitated training related to wildlife crime prevention in Cameroon, Indonesia, Madagascar, and Namibia. In 2010 she received a MS in Fisheries and Wildlife from Michigan State University with a focus on the human dimensions of human‐wildlife conflict in community conservation areas in the Zambezi, Namibia. Attending The Ohio State University she received a BA in Anthropology and a BS in Natural Resources Management, with distinction in Wildlife Management. Prior to attending MSU, she served in the US Peace Corps for three years as a Community Coastal Resources Advisor and National ReefCheck Coordinator in the island country of Vanuatu.

Dr. Jens Karlsson Frank is a Researcher at the Department of Ecology and Wildlife Damage Center at the Swedish Agricultural University. He works extensively with applied research on problem situations with large predators. His research primarily focuses on damage to domestic animals and various measures to prevent these but is also interdisciplinary and explores connections with people's fear of bears and wolves.

Dr. Heidi Kretser is the Deputy Director, Conservation and Communities, for the Wildlife Conservation Society’s North America Program. She has worked with WCS for 18 years in numerous capacities, her current interests include addressing complex conservation questions by creating effective communication that generates action on topics as varied as wildlife trafficking and white‐nose syndrome, devising strategies for reducing the impacts of low‐density rural development on wildlife, and building collaborative approaches for increasing capacity and achieving conservation outcomes across diverse constituents. She completed her Ph.D. in the Human Dimensions Research Unit at Cornell University and holds a master’s degree from the Yale School of Forestry. She also serves as Adjunct Associate Professor at Cornell University’s Department of Natural Resources.

Dr. Andrew M. Lemieux is a Researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. His main areas of interest are the spatial and temporal distribution of crime, the use of technology to improve law enforcement operations, and anti‐poaching operations in Africa.

Alexa Montefiore is a Program Manager for the Wildlife Conservation Society's (WCS) Americas Program. Prior to this position, she served as the Program Manager for the SMART Partnership, a collaboration of nine global conservation organizations, addressing a pressing conservation need by creating a proven, simple to deploy, free solution to strengthen conservation management. She worked across the Partnership to encourage adoption of SMART worldwide and to establish greater support for the implementing partners. Prior to joining SMART, she worked at Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, focusing on a range of initiatives for social good, with the ultimate goal of helping people live happier, healthier, and safer lives. Alexa is interested in cultivating innovative programs that help people think and act differently. Alexa received a master’s degree from NYU in Environmental Conservation.

Dr. William D. Moreto is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida and a visiting scholar at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. He received his doctorate from the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice. His research focuses on environmental criminology and crime prevention, wildlife crime, and wildlife law enforcement. His research has been published in The British Journal of Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Deviant Behavior, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Crime Science and Oryx: The International Journal of Conservation.

Dr. Lisa Naughton‐Treves is a Geography professor at the University of Wisconsin‐Madison, USA. Her research concerns the social dimensions of biodiversity conservation, with particular emphasis on protected areas and land use conflicts in the tropics. She has long‐term field studies in Uganda, Ecuador, and Peru. She directed UW‐Madison’s Land Tenure Center, chaired the graduate program in Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development, and now chairs the Geography Department.

Jessica Bell Rizzolo is a Ph.D. student in Sociology at Michigan State University who holds specializations in Animal Studies, Environmental Science and Policy, and Conservation Criminology, and an affiliate of the Kerulos Center. Jessica’s research areas include trans‐species psychology, discursive representations of wildlife, the sociopolitical dynamics of conservation initiatives, wildlife tourism, and the illegal wildlife trade. Her current work focuses on mahout cultures and psychological indicators of elephant trauma and wellbeing in Thailand.

Dr. Shawn J. Riley is the Parrish Storrs Lovejoy Professor of Wildlife Management in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University, and a scientist in the Partnership for Ecosystem Research and Management. He is a Fellow in The Wildlife Society, and was a Senior Fulbright Fellow at the Swedish Agricultural University. His research focuses mostly on human‐wildlife interactions, how those interactions affect human attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife, and how to more effectively integrate social science insights in decisions about wildlife management. Shawn teaches a senior‐level course, Human Dimensions of Fisheries and Wildlife, at MSU for which he was awarded his college’s Excellence in Teaching Award.

Dr. Brent A. Rudolph is a Wildlife Research Specialist and serves as the Social Science Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Brent earned his Ph.D. in Fisheries and Wildlife (working in the human dimensions focus area and with the conservation criminology program) from Michigan State University, his M.S. in Environmental and Forest Biology (with a wildlife biology concentration) from the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and his B.S. in Biology (with a field studies concentration) from Ohio Northern University. Brent is involved in a wide variety of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research projects. He has enjoyed collaborating with numerous agency, university, and nongovernmental organization partners to comprehensively inform natural resource management and public policy over more than 17 years of public service. His current focus is on improving wildlife governance through gaining greater understanding of how the public forms judgments of trust in wildlife agencies, and the effects of that trust and other factors on compliance and cooperation with management programs.

Dr. Niki Rust is a wildlife conservationist with a special interest in using social science to better understand conservation problems. She focuses on bridging qualitative ethnographic studies with quantitative methods and is particularly keen on devising participatory decision‐making tools. Her research topics include community‐based conservation, human‐wildlife interactions and African carnivores. Niki recently completed a PhD at the University of Kent, UK, where she studied the interaction between farmers, farm workers, livestock and wildlife on Namibia's commercial farms. She is now working as a Wildlife Technical Adviser for WWF-UK. In her spare time, Niki a journalist and is keen on furthering science communication to benefit society.

Dr. Emma Stokes is the Director of Conservation Science for the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Africa Program. She has 20 years’ experience of conservation science and management in tropical forests, with a focus on large mammal ecology and population status. She has conducted fieldwork on apes in Indonesia, Uganda and Republic of Congo, and coordinated landscape‐scale implementation of conservation assessment and wildlife monitoring programs for apes and elephants in Northern Congo and for tigers across South‐East Asia. Her skills include scientific design and application of management‐focused biodiversity monitoring programs and strategic evaluation of conservation outcomes, with a focus on law enforcement effectiveness. She holds a degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University and a PhD in cognitive ecology from the University of St Andrews. She has worked for the Wildlife Conservation Society since 1999.

Dr. Aksel Sundström is a postdoctoral researcher affiliated to the Quality of Government (QoG) Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. His research agenda focuses on public administration and political institutions. He is also working on women's political representation. Sundström has published in peer‐reviewed outlets such as Biological Conservation, Electoral Studies, Energy Policy, Environmental Politics, Global Environmental Change, Party Politics and Public Administration.

Dr. Milind Tambe is Helen N. and Emmett H. Jones Professor in Engineering at the University of Southern California(USC). He is a fellow of AAAI and ACM, as well as recipient of the ACM/SIGART Autonomous Agents Research Award, Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation Homeland security award, INFORMS Wagner prize for excellence in Operations Research practice, Rist Prize of the Military Operations Research Society, IBM Faculty Award, Okawa foundation faculty research award, RoboCup scientific challenge award, and other local awards such as the Orange County Engineering Council Outstanding Project Achievement Award, USC Associates award for creativity in research and USC Viterbi use‐inspired research award. Prof. Tambe has contributed several foundational papers in AI in areas such as multiagent teamwork, distributed constraint optimization (DCOP) and security games. For this research, he has received the “influential paper award” and a number of best paper awards at conferences such as AAMAS, IJCAI, IAAI, and IVA. In addition, Prof. Tambe pioneering real‐world deployments of “security games” has led him and his team to receive the US Coast Guard Meritorious Team Commendation from the Commandant, US Coast Guard First District's Operational Excellence Award, Certificate of Appreciation from the US Federal Air Marshals Service and special commendation given by LA Airport police from the city of Los Angeles. For his teaching and service, Prof. Tambe has received the USC Steven B. Sample Teaching and Mentoring award and the ACM recognition of service award. He has also co‐founded a company based on his research, ARMORWAY, where he serves as the director of research. Prof. Tambe received his Ph.D. from the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University.

Dr. Adrian Treves earned his PhD at Harvard University in 1997 and is now an associate professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research focuses on ecology, law, the public trust, and agroecosystems where crop and livestock production overlap carnivore habitat. He and his students work to understand and manage the balance between human needs and carnivore conservation. He has authored more than 100 scientific papers on predator‐prey ecology or conservation. Most recently Dr. Treves has been writing and speaking on the public trust doctrine.

Dr. Serge Wich started his biology study at the University of Amsterdam and obtained his PhD in 2002 at Utrecht University. He joined Liverpool John Moores University (Liverpool, UK) as a professor in primate biology in 2012. In 2014 he joined the UvA as an honorary professor for the conservation of the great apes. Serge is also a Founding Director of the non‐profit, ConservationDrones.org. His research focuses on primate behavioral ecology, tropical rain forest ecology and conservation of primates and their habitats. Together with Dr. Lian Pin Koh he founded ConservationDrones.org and uses drones for conservation applications.

Dr. Tanya Wyatt is a Reader in Criminology at Northumbria University in Newcastle, UK. She is a green criminologist specializing in wildlife trafficking and the role of corruption, terrorism and organized crime in committing this crime. Her publications include Wildlife Trafficking: A deconstruction of the crime, the victims and the offenders as well as numerous peer reviewed publications in journals such as Deviant Behavior, Crime, Law and Social Change and Contemporary Justice Review.

Dr. Rong Yang received her Ph.D. from the Computer Science Department at the University of Southern California. She worked with Dr. Milind Tambe on problems related to addressing the unrealistic perfect rationality assumption of the human adversary in Stackelberg Security Games for real‐world security problems. Dr. Yang is currently at Google Inc. She is working on improving YouTube user experience using machine learning technologies.

Zachary Voyles earned degrees in Wildlife Biology (B.S., 2008), Communication Studies (B.A. 2008), and Conservation Biology (M.S. 2013) and has worked in the private, government and non‐profit sectors. His professional work experience and research have focused on human–bear and human–wolf conflicts in the Upper Midwest and Central Rocky Mountain regions. He is currently a Farm Bill Wildlife Biologist for Pheasants Forever, Inc.

Preface

Certain questions have always puzzled me. Why doesn’t science work to answer conservation policy questions in a systematic, reliable, and holistic way? Why isn’t science easily translated into science‐based policy? Why don’t scientists listen to policymakers’ questions about evaluation, assessment, and feasibility estimates and better advance the scientific knowledge base needed to answer policy questions?

I pursued a conservation social science PhD under Barbara Knuth at Cornell University in order to position myself to answer these questions through the process and products of doctoral research. My dissertation explored the human dimensions of black bear management. In many ways the context was ubiquitous to human–wildlife conflict around the world. Humans and black bear populations were increasingly overlapping and coming into contact with each other. When a black bear attacked an infant who later died from her injuries, there was widespread agreement among stakeholders that social science, along with ecology, was needed for decision‐making. My research explored how to foster voluntary behavior change and compliance with rules among humans so as to reduce human–black bear conflict. I will never forget the last question I received during my dissertation defense. Lou Berchelli, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation bear biologist, asked me why the behavior change program I designed, implemented, and evaluated did not generate intended outcomes and what I would change if I could do it all over again. My answer was automatic: I would focus more on non‐compliance and enforcement. It was at that moment that I started to think deeply about why a marriage between conservation and criminology would be a good idea and what it might look like. I also considered what such an interdisciplinary perspective might bring to the conservation policy arena.

Fast forward to today, and human‐wildlife conflicts are globally distributed and pose risks to people and wildlife. There is agreement that a scientific understanding of human behavior is critical for effective environmental policy and to improve humans’ ability to predict and adapt to environmental change emerging as a cause and/or consequence of natural resource declines. The volume that follows is the product of many hours of hard work by the contributors and myself to produce new and innovative boundary science—that is, science that connects the knowledge base to practice associated with the risks from natural resource declines. Chapters reflect agreement that scientists and policymakers can work together and better address the issue of extra‐legal exploitation of natural resources. One way this can occur is by increasing interdisciplinary collaborations among and between sectors. Policymakers can delineate for scientists the practical gaps in knowledge needed to inform development or implementation of policy, context specificity, and evaluation. Scientists can work to present their results in ways that help policymakers scale implications. Along with broadening opportunities for interdisciplinary cooperation, it is worthwhile to provide ample space for disciplinary specialists to contribute when needed.

A second parallel opportunity for scientists and policymakers to pursue is engaging the public. Both may engage publics to assist in surveillance and monitoring of natural resource exploitation. Considering publics as informants rather than suspects in natural resource exploitation can help build datasets to help study change over time, enhance capacity of civil society regarding natural resource management, and broaden the network of defenders against extra‐legal exploitation. In practice, public participation is challenging but worth pursuing because broadening the quality of the intelligence base can help policy‐makers craft policy that is as effective, efficient, and feasible as possible.

I’m indebted to the authors for their time and perspective. I believe there is a valid sense of urgency for us to collaborate and address the negative effects of natural resource declines, but I also have a sense of optimism about what can be resolved. It is my hope that this volume contributes to solutions both on the ground, in the policy arena, and for science diplomacy.

Meredith L. GoreEast Lansing, MichiganJanuary 2017

Acknowledgments

Marcia Baar, Rachel Boratto, Tamara Dempsey, Mark Gibson, Molly Good, Joe Hamm, Michelle Lute, Mike Mascia, Jen Owen, Ethan Shirley, Bill Siemer, Do Mi Stauber, Heather Triezenberg, Lee Schwartz. Thank you for your support, critique, inspiration, and feedback.

1Global Risks, Conservation, and Criminology

Meredith L. Gore

1.1 Conservation Crimes Are a Global Problem

In recent years, levels of unsustainable and illegal natural resource exploitation have escalated in scope, scale, and severity such that the issue is now firmly in the crosshairs of high‐level policymakers. Exploitation is now the dominant cause of global wildlife decline, surpassing habitat degradation, climate change, and habitat loss (McLellan, 2014). The World Wildlife Fund’s 2014 Living Planet Index, which measures trends in thousands of vertebrate species, showed a 52% decline in size of populations between 1970 and 2010. Populations of freshwater species fell by a staggering 76% during this time period; marine populations dropped 39% (McLellan, 2014). Today, a wide array of government, civil society, nongovernmental, and private sector partners are collaborating and coordinating to address this problem at multiple scales.

Wildlife‐related problems were once considered boutique issues fitting squarely within the purview of the conservation community. Due to their widening range of impacts, these issues are now considered a global scourge in a swath of sectors. The problem is no longer viewed as solely limited to the ecological impacts or moral implications of species extinction, although these consequences are profound (e.g., Valiente‐Banuet et al., 2015; Vucetich, Bruskotter, & Nelson, 2015). Wildlife trafficking threatens the security and prosperity of people, poor inspection processes of at border crossings allow the spread of zoonotic diseases, park rangers are being killed, and rebel militias are players in global ivory markets (Clinton, 2012). Reductions in biodiversity or the population sizes of species can have other substantial negative human health impacts unrelated to these risks, including loss of potential sources of pharmaceuticals, experimental models for studying disease, crop pollination, and both micro‐ and macronutrients for humans lacking alternative sources of protein (Meyers et al., 2013). Recent recognition of these risks by policymakers has led to calls for inclusive approaches to create a comprehensive picture of the problem to inform on‐the‐ground programs and high‐level policies. Diverse sectors with equities in wildlife policy generation commonly acknowledge proactive solutions require holistic, integrative, and innovative perspectives. For example:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in her 2012 remarks to the Partnership Meeting on Wildlife Trafficking stated there is a need to look at the problem of wildlife trafficking in a comprehensive, holistic way (Clinton, 2012).

In July 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13648 on Combatting Wildlife Trafficking. The EO established a Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking and Interagency Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking, both of which were charged with incorporating knowledge from multiple sectors and diverse agencies (Obama, 2013).

The United Nations Environment Programme published an Environmental Crime Crisis report, discussing far reaching societal consequences of the illegal wildlife trade; the report called for a global and holistic response to be implemented at all levels and with all means possible (Nellemann, Henreiksen, Raxter, Ash, & Mrema, 2014).

HRH The Prince of Wales and HRH The Duke of Cambridge hosted the End Wildlife Crime Conference; during his speech the Prince acknowledged finding a solution to illegal wildlife trade will require people from many different sectors to work together (Prince of Wales, 2013).

In 2015, 41 governments signed the Kasane Statement at the Kasane Conference on Wildlife Trafficking, committing to engaging with the transport sector to raise awareness of the role they can play and support development of industry‐wide practices that eliminate the illegal wildlife trade (Kasane Statement, 2015).

These policy statements and new funding lines indicate conservation crimes are a high political priority at this time; they also underlay new interdisciplinary collaborations, multi‐sectoral partnerships, and renewed scientific attention to the global problem. Across these initiatives, programs, and speeches there is widespread agreement that the convergence of threats—to ecosystems, geopolitical stability, national security, human health and well‐being, and future generations—requires multidisciplinary and multidimensional approaches to resolve negative effects. However, policymakers are often uncertain about what data are needed, available, and attainable to inform the most effective solution architecture.

This book is intended to complement the work being done by government actors, private sector partners, civil society and nongovernmental organizations, development institutions, and others to reduce the negative effects of conservation crimes on people and the environment. The academic community has much to contribute, particularly in terms of evidence for evaluating the efficacy, efficiency, and feasibility of policy alternatives. Academic inquiry can help document the voice of local people and other publics who are necessary players for meaningful outcomes. The science of conservation crime, also referred to as conservation criminology, is particularly relevant (Gore, 2011). This paradigm offers an integrative means for addressing the natural and societal domains inherent in wildlife trafficking. Comprised of three primary disciplines—natural resources management, risk and decision science, and criminology—conservation criminology seeks to overcome limitations inherent to single‐discipline science and provide practical guidance about on‐the‐ground practice (Figure 1.1). It is not a rigid, prescriptive dogma and it is not confined to the walls of the ivory tower. Rather, it is a lens that different stakeholders can use to view the risks associated with human‐environment relationships. As an interdisciplinary paradigm, the fundamental goal of conservation criminology is to provide a platform for conversations and connections that lead to new knowledge. The paradigm incorporates the principle of holism—the whole is not only greater than the sum of the parts but the parts are related in such a way that their functioning is conditioned by their relationship to each other.

Figure 1.1 Conservation criminology is an interdisciplinary and applied paradigm for understanding programs and policies associated with global conservation risks. By integrating natural resources management, risk and decision science, and criminology, conservation criminology‐based approaches ideally result in improved environmental resilience, biodiversity conservation, and secure human livelihoods.

This chapter profiles conservation criminology in its current form, as well as its key strengths and limitations. Additional chapters in this volume elaborate and build upon many of the concepts described in this chapter. Ideally, current and future practitioners will adapt principles discussed in this and other chapters, allowing for the evolution of applied conservation criminology. This chapter first discusses the three foundational disciplines of conservation criminology, paying particular attention to key theories and principles. Reviewing the attributes of the three different disciplines enables readers to have a common foundation upon which they can consider the solution architecture of conservation criminology as a concept. The chapter details strengths and weaknesses with the approach and identifies gaps in the knowledge base. It concludes with a roadmap for the book, highlighting important landmarks and a vision for the future of conservation criminology.

1.2 Three Foundational Fields of Conservation Criminology

1.3 Foundation 1: Natural Resource Management and Policy

Science surrounding Earth’s natural biophysical systems—climate, stratospheric ozone, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and the cycles of water, nitrogen, and carbon—is the purview of the natural sciences. Of specific interest to conservation criminology are the sister sciences of natural resource management and conservation biology. Both disciplines include a focus on exploring and understanding direct and indirect threats to biodiversity and natural resources including trees, water, animals, and minerals. They consider natural systems as well as the different anthropogenic processes, including deforestation, desertification, pollution, agricultural expansion, or urban sprawl that can drive species extinction, habitat loss, introduced species, or overexploitation of species (Mulder & Coppolillo, 2005). The natural biophysical systems disciplines that are most relevant to conservation crimes diverge by context. Problem definition dictates the extent to which geography, ecology, zoology, or other natural sciences are applied in pursuit of attaining the answers that achieve desirable end goals. In many ways and in contrast to criminology, the natural sciences have historically prioritized thinking about harm as something humans have caused instead of suffer from (e.g., driving the Mauritius dodo or passenger pigeon to extinction was harmful to non‐human species and did not functionally cause humans harm). Select themes recurrent in natural resource management and conservation biology that clearly connect to conservation criminology are profiled below.

1.3.1 Different Values Underlie Natural Resource Management and Conservation

Fundamentally, natural resource management and conservation biology exist because society values natural systems, although our values can, and do, differ. Here, a value is a stable, superordinate cognitive structure. Values form the root of attitudes and behaviors associated with conservation, are important elements of cultural transmission, and are linked to prevailing human needs. One example in conservation biology is the “no use” value of preservation, which aims to protect species, ecosystems, or landscapes without reference to natural changes in living systems or human requirements. Alternatively, “wise use” values of natural resource management involve the maintenance of environmental quality and resources, or a particular balance among species, including people, of a particular area (Callicott & Nelson, 1998). Value typologies from psychology compliment social norm theories and attitude frameworks describing different stakeholders’ motivations, satisfaction, and participation in conservation action (e.g., Decker, Brown, & Seimer, 2001).

Values underlie a number of tensions that are often found within natural resource management and conservation biology. A well‐known example is the tension between conservation (i.e., wise use) and preservation (i.e., no use). Both terms define human relationships with the environment, but invoke fundamentally different approaches for governance and reform (see Callicott & Nelson, 1998). Friction between integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) and sustainable development is another example (see Tisdell, 1999). On the one hand, ICDPs aim to promote voluntary compliance with conservation rules, ideally providing livelihood alternatives so as to simultaneously conserve biodiversity and preserve livelihoods. ICDP‐based strategies have met mixed results in the field (see Barrett & Arcese, 1995; Gandiwa, Heitkönig, Lokhorst, Prins, & Leeuwis, 2013). On the other hand, sustainable development activities may be implemented in a top‐down manner that promotes exclusion of people from geographic spaces, generally locals, in order to achieve compliance with conservation rules. This fences and fines approach ideally results in high deterrence rates and thus compliance with conservation rules but the conditional technique and lack of local involvement in decision‐making commonly backfires (Kubo & Supriyanto, 2010).

There is an inherent set of assumptions about the value of social sciences in natural resource management and conservation or more specifically how, when, and in what contexts social science can contribute to conservation science policy (Mascia, 2006). Here, value, the verb, is applied as an assignment of importance in terms of whose science is privileged and whose is marginalized within the conservation domain (e.g., setting research agendas, the weight of results in decision‐making and authoritativeness of the science). These assumptions remind us there are many different stakeholders with equity in conservation (e.g., states, corporations, donors, organized crime cartels). Stakeholders operate within the context of institutional settings such as family, friends, tribes, communities, health systems, policy, and schools. At a micro level, individuals can play different roles within the natural resource management process being investigated; people hold diverse social roles and are not in fact homogenous, although sometimes during stakeholder engagement processes, we assume they only hold one identity! These factors add to the complexity of the networks engaged in the problem. Because of values, human‐human relationships are often as important to consider as human‐natural resource relationships (Lute & Gore, 2014).

1.3.2 The Precautionary Principle and Prevention

The precautionary principle is a regulatory instrument developed in response to situations of environmental risk, such as those associated with biodiversity conservation (Myers, 1993). Applied in different forms around the world, it is relevant to issues such as hazardous substances and toxic chemicals. It is considered a multidisciplinary concept embedded in legal, economic, and scientific policies. The precautionary principle reflects the idea that uncertainty about environmental risks should not preclude preventative action (Cooney & Dickson, 2005). Further, preventative actions can be taken in the face of uncertainty about outcomes and the burden of proof is reversed (e.g., guilty until proven innocent). The precautionary principle is widely applied, for example, in guiding decisions about which species should be included in the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Appendices, and thus subject to international trade controls. Precautionary approaches also appear in many multilateral fisheries agreements on management and conservation such as the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization. Perhaps the most well‐known global application of the precautionary principle relates to protected area sites for biodiversity conservation. These mechanisms link indicators of biological risk such as species status to management responses such as prohibition on use (Cooney & Dickson, 2005). In reality, some conservation decisions simultaneously pose threats and benefits to humans and the environment. Many biodiversity conservation contexts do not adhere to a decision‐making model where there is only one clearly risky strategy and a precautious one. Often, decisions are between risk to and from different sources and over different timescales. A widely known example of this phenomenon would be wildlife harvest (i.e., hunting) bans. The tradeoffs of this approach involve, in a highly simplified form, the risk of overexploitation of a species on the one hand and the risk of illegal trade on the other. Decision‐making regarding wildlife harvest bans involves a complex array of dimensions, including ethics associated with the method of take, sustainable livelihoods, allocation of benefits associated with wildlife trophies, and economics of wildlife trade (see Challender & Cooney, 2016).

The precautionary principle can be considered a source of friction in an increasingly connected world; frictions provide barriers and obstacles to risks. When effective, friction counteracts the flows (e.g., how we distribute natural resources and energy) that create risks (Khanna, 2016). Ultimately, conservationists are propelled by a sense of urgency to increase friction (e.g., retard extinction) and so the precautionary principle accommodates, and is used to justify, the need for preventative action (Cooney, 2004). Such actions, designed to control flow, can be the result of conservation for the purpose of moral duty for future generations or utilitarian values and ecosystem services (Hance, 2016).

1.3.3 Community‐Based Conservation

Community‐based conservation (CBC) involves the devolution of authority to local communities to manage natural resources (Bergh, 2004). The approach stands in contrast to top‐down approaches in which decision‐makers make and take actions unilaterally based on their professional knowledge, training, and expertise. CBC accounts for the fact that local people cannot undertake conservation (i.e., a long‐term strategy) when their short‐term needs are not met. One broad appeal of CBC is that it theoretically ensures benefits for local people and recognizes indigenous people’s rights to land and resources. Ideally, this model attends to the increase in public expectations for conservation solutions tailored to the local context and decrease in agency funds and personnel to effectively conserve all natural resources across time (Raik & Decker, 2007). CBC is intended to bridge the conservation‐development divide and can take different forms. ICPD projects are a subset of CBC; all are implemented at the community level but not all CBC projects involve the scale of economic development entailed in ICDP. Community‐based natural resource management tends to refer to rural programs concerned more with utilization of natural resources than protected area management (Mulder & Coppolillo, 2004). One reason CBC is widely applied is that it can enable citizen participation in natural resource and conservation decisions. Citizens can be involved in making, understanding, implementing, or evaluating decisions for improved outcomes (Decker et al., 2001). The overall conservation climate is enhanced through improved relationships among relevant stakeholders and increased capacity of different stakeholders to contribute to conservation in practice. Challenges to citizen participation abound and can include lack of time and money, resistance among decision‐makers, complexity of weighting the input of different opinions, and poor relationships with certain stakeholders (Decker et al., 2001). Precaution may be aligned with the long‐term interest of those people whose actions threaten biodiversity (Cooney, 2004).

1.3.4 Protected Areas

Protected areas (PAs) are one of the most widely used and flexible policy instruments in biodiversity conservation, even more so than market mechanisms such as direct land acquisitions, supply chain mechanisms such as green certification, or ICDP projects such as community forestry. In 2011, there were an estimated 160,000 terrestrial and marine PA established globally and the 193 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity committed to increasing the global extent of PAs to 17% of national lands (up from 12.7%) and 10% of marine areas under national jurisdiction (up from 4.0%) (Mascia et al., 2014). They are geographically defined areas designated or regulated to achieve specific conservation objectives; they are a common mechanism for implementing a precautionary approach for conservation threats. PA management categories include strict nature reserve, species management area, national park, or managed resource PA. And, they can have different management objectives including science, sustainable use of natural ecosystems, or conservation through intervention. These categories acknowledge PAs are socially defined and involve socially constructed governance regimes. These human dimensions of PA management have long been recognized, and given PAs’ regulatory dependence, the enforcement community has been and will likely continue to be a key player in their use as a