The recent extension of criminological focus to harms against the environment and animals other than humans may be referred to as ‘greening’ (e.g. Beirne and South 2007). This ‘environmental criminology’ approach (see Box 7.1) remains small and in its infancy, and may be in conflict with mainstream criminology’s distinct lack of interest in, for example, offences against animals other than humans (Cazaux 2007; Mailley and Clarke 2008). However, it would seem that conventional criminology may have something to contribute to a green agenda (White 2008). This is also recognised by some conservation scientists, as seen in this quotation from Ferraro (2005) in response to similar calls from Smith and Walpole (2005). Smith & Walpole point to a long-known, but persistent, problem within the field of biodiversity conservation: the appalling paucity of rigorous theory and well designed, empirical analyses of (1) the driving forces of ecosystem and species decline and (2) the relative effectiveness of interventions aimed at reversing this decline. Unless well-trained social scientists are encouraged by conservation scientists to take an interest in the global decline of biodiversity, we will make little progress in stemming this decline.
|Title of host publication||Global Environmental Harm|
|Subtitle of host publication||Criminological Perspectives|
|Publisher||Taylor and Francis AS|
|Number of pages||18|
|ISBN (Print)||9781843927969, 9781843927976|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Mar 2010|
Wellsmith, M. (2010). The applicability of crime prevention to problems of environmental harm: A consideration of illicit trade in endangered species. In R. White (Ed.), Global Environmental Harm: Criminological Perspectives (pp. 132-149). Taylor and Francis AS. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843927983