TY - JOUR
T1 - Defining environmental crime
T2 - The perspective of farmers
AU - Barclay, Elaine
AU - Bartel, Robyn
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by a grant from the Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts: Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities Fund , Canberra Australia.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
PY - 2015/6/1
Y1 - 2015/6/1
N2 - Most discussions of environmental crime typically refer to environmental degradation at the macro level, such as the large scale pollution of rivers or oceans, where there is no clear victim. This paper reports on a study which examined environmental crime from a more micro, place-based perspective, namely incidents that occur on farms where individual farmers are victims. Almost half of the 1926 respondents to a nation-wide survey of Australian farmers reported experiencing some type of environmental harm over the previous two years. Three case studies then examined whether farmers defined such harms as environmental 'crime'. Many but not all harms were described as crimes and there was divergence as well as convergence with formal law. In some areas, farmers' appreciations led formal proscriptions. Where farmers 'lagged' behind, contextual reasons were provided for the exceptions. All actions leading to harm were considered criminal if intentional, while accidental acts were not. Negligence was also used to define some actions as environmental crimes. The findings add to the growing literature on Green Victimology and the need to understand informal norms and appreciations of law as well as formal impositions and structures.
AB - Most discussions of environmental crime typically refer to environmental degradation at the macro level, such as the large scale pollution of rivers or oceans, where there is no clear victim. This paper reports on a study which examined environmental crime from a more micro, place-based perspective, namely incidents that occur on farms where individual farmers are victims. Almost half of the 1926 respondents to a nation-wide survey of Australian farmers reported experiencing some type of environmental harm over the previous two years. Three case studies then examined whether farmers defined such harms as environmental 'crime'. Many but not all harms were described as crimes and there was divergence as well as convergence with formal law. In some areas, farmers' appreciations led formal proscriptions. Where farmers 'lagged' behind, contextual reasons were provided for the exceptions. All actions leading to harm were considered criminal if intentional, while accidental acts were not. Negligence was also used to define some actions as environmental crimes. The findings add to the growing literature on Green Victimology and the need to understand informal norms and appreciations of law as well as formal impositions and structures.
KW - Australia
KW - Environmental crime
KW - Environmental laws
KW - Farms
KW - Green victimology
KW - Social construction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937968344&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.01.007
DO - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.01.007
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84937968344
SN - 0743-0167
VL - 39
SP - 188
EP - 198
JO - Journal of Rural Studies
JF - Journal of Rural Studies
ER -