Abstract
SummaryMany previous studies argue that harsher forestry legislation should be enforced to handle the problem of tree poaching. However, empirical studies on the behavioural analysis of poachers’ decision making is largely lacking. Drawing from conversations with 65 inmates imprisoned for Forestry Act offences in Taiwan, we discuss the reasons behind the intention whether or not to stop tree poaching. The majority (81.5%) of the sample expressed their intention to stop tree poaching. Among the 16 demographic, offence and punishment characteristics, we identified only four variables to be included in the final logistic regression model to predict the decision to stop. We found that (1) having no previous experience of stout camphor tree (Cinnamomum kanehirae) theft, taking a log from a stout camphor tree and selling it to buyers; or (2) higher level of education could predict a greater likelihood of intending to quit. Given the limitation of the existing control approach, we propose a restorative justice approach to the poaching problem. A restorative justice approach, instead of focusing solely on the violation of law, recognizes the harm done and forms collaborative work to repair the harm and prevent future wrongdoings. It also helps break the vicious cycle of a poaching subculture.
Highlights
Illegal logging, or illegal harvest of logs, often refers to extracting logs by violating regulations or legislations (Tacconi 2007)
In order to specify the illegal activities of interest in this study, we use the term ‘tree poaching’, which has a narrower definition referring to taking of single trees by individuals or small groups (Pendleton 2007), instead of illegal logging
Pendleton (2007) considered three types of tree theft found in North America, namely timber trespass (Type I), timber theft (Type II) and tree poaching (Type III), where tree poaching is the ‘highest in manifest deviance and lowest in legitimate affiliation’
Summary
Illegal harvest of logs, often refers to extracting logs by violating regulations or legislations (Tacconi 2007). In order to specify the illegal activities of interest in this study, we use the term ‘tree poaching’, which has a narrower definition referring to taking of single trees by individuals or small groups (Pendleton 2007), instead of illegal logging. Taking a social interactionist perspective, Pendleton (2007) considered ‘tree theft’, compared with ‘tree poaching’, to be less labelled by the community. Use of ‘timber trespass’ might downplay illegality as this can result from accidentally cutting trees as part of legitimate commercial timber logging, which was what happened in the Peruvian Amazon (Finer et al 2014). Neither tree theft nor timber trespass fits the illegal logging phenomenon in Taiwan. We adopt ‘tree poaching’ or sometimes ‘illegal logging’ to refer to illegal forestry activities and ‘tree poachers’ to refer to people who committed actions of Forestry Act violation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
