Understanding site selection of illegal border crossings into a fenced protected area: a rational choice approach

12Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study investigates illegal border crossings by rhino poachers into a fenced reserve in South Africa, comparing journeys to and after crime using a rational choice approach. Using various regression models, our analysis indicates poachers prefer to enter and exit the reserve near high rhino densities, while high road densities outside the reserve increase the odds of an illegal entry. The results also show that half of the incursions occurred at a single location, leading us to describe the special circumstances of this outlier. The study lays a foundation for understanding the location choices poachers make and presents a methodology that can be replicated in other reserves.

References Powered by Scopus

The package "adehabitat" for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals

3284Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates

3188Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression

1509Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Crime scripting: A systematic review

61Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Provoked poachers? Applying a situational precipitator framework to examine the nexus between human-wildlife conflict, retaliatory killings, and poaching

32Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Choice Structuring Properties of Natural Resource Theft: An Examination of Redwood Burl Poaching

12Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

van Doormaal, N., Lemieux, A. M., & Ruiter, S. (2018). Understanding site selection of illegal border crossings into a fenced protected area: a rational choice approach. Crime Science, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-018-0081-9

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 11

55%

Researcher 6

30%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

15%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 10

53%

Environmental Science 6

32%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2

11%

Computer Science 1

5%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free