Model for Evaluating the Impact of the Illegal Wildlife Trade
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/cavg4994Keywords:
Illegal wildlife trade, SEN Evaluation Model, portfolio weighting approach.Abstract
The calculation of the impact score of illegal wildlife trade is of great significance for the protection of wildlife. In order to accurately calculate the illegal wildlife trade impact score, this paper constructs the illegal wildlife trade impact (SEN) evaluation model based on the combined weighting method of hierarchical analysis, coefficient of variation method and CRITIC weighting method, and selects 11 second-level indexes from the three aspects of society, economy and nature. The model calculation shows that from 2009 to 2023, the scores of social, economic and natural develop in a decreasing trend from 73, 63 and 56, respectively.
Downloads
References
Rush E R, Dale E, Aguirre A A. Illegal wildlife trade and emerging infectious diseases: pervasive impacts to species, ecosystems and human health[J]. Animals, 2021, 11(6): 1821.
Hughes L J, Morton O, Scheffers B R, et al. The ecological drivers and consequences of wildlife trade[J]. Biological Reviews, 2023, 98(3): 775-791.
Hu S, Cheng Y, Pan R, et al. Understanding the social impacts of enforcement activities on illegal wildlife trade in China[J]. Ambio, 2022, 51(7): 1643-1657.
Easter T, Trautmann J, Gore M, et al. Media portrayal of the illegal trade in wildlife: The case of turtles in the US and implications for conservation[J]. People and Nature, 2023.
Adhiasto D N, Exploitasia I, Fahlapie P, et al. A criminal justice response to address the illegal trade of wildlife in Indonesia[J]. Conservation Letters, 2023: e12937.
Mozer A, Prost S. An Introduction to Illegal Wildlife Trade and its Effects on Biodiversity and Society[J]. Forensic Science International: Animals and Environments, 2023: 100064.
Jiao Y, Lee T M. The global magnitude and implications of legal and illegal wildlife trade in China[J]. Oryx, 2022, 56(3): 404-411.
Kaymaz Ç K, Birinci S, Kızılkan Y. Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis[J]. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2022, 24(3): 2986-3012.
Challender D W S, Brockington D, Hinsley A, et al. Mischaracterizing wildlife trade and its impacts may mislead policy processes[J]. Conservation Letters, 2022, 15(1): e12832.
Novák L, Novák D. Estimation of coefficient of variation for structural analysis: The correlation interval approach[J]. Structural Safety, 2021, 92: 102101.
Krishnan A R, Kasim M M, Hamid R, et al. A modified CRITIC method to estimate the objective weights of decision criteria[J]. Symmetry, 2021, 13(6): 973.
Kelley K. Sample size planning for the coefficient of variation from the accuracy in parameter estimation approach[J]. Behavior Research Methods, 2007, 39(4): 755-766.
Phelps J, Biggs D, Webb E L. Tools and terms for understanding illegal wildlife trade[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2016, 14(9): 479-489.
Van Uhm D P, Moreto W D. Corruption within the illegal wildlife trade: a symbiotic and antithetical enterprise[J]. The British Journal of Criminology, 2018, 58(4): 864-885.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
