Study Challenges One-Size-Fits-All Policies for Illegal Wildlife Trade

A vibrant garden bed featuring a variety of potted succulents, including pale green paddle plants, red-rimmed jade plants, and clustered pale blue rosette succulents growing along weathered driftwood against a brick wall.

GEOG Professor Meredith Gore co-authors paper showing how scarcity drives demand for rare species and why dominant policy responses may be counterproductive.

A new study led by University of Maryland researchers finds that markets for illegal products operate differently from other illegal wildlife trades, suggesting that policy and regulatory responses should be tailored to specific market types and account for unintended consequences.

That dynamic reflects a broader pattern identified in a new paper led by Greg Midgette, associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, and co-authored by Meredith Gore, professor in the Department of Geographical Sciences. The study finds that dominant policy strategies like supply restrictions and trade bans can be a poor match for some illegal wildlife markets, including rare succulent plants.

Published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the paper argues  that wildlife markets are not a single system but instead operate through distinct structures depending on how products are used, stored and traded.

The researchers grouped wildlife products into three categories based on durability and use. Luxury goods like elephant ivory can be stored and sold over time. Nondurable products such as pangolin scales are consumed more quickly and traded in bulk. Perishable goods including live animals like exotic pets and plants like succulents must move rapidly through supply chains. These differences shape how markets are organized, how prices form and how easily markets can be disrupted.

One of the study’s central findings challenges a common assumption in conservation policy: that protecting an endangered species will reduce demand for its products. Instead, the researchers describe a dynamic in which scarcity can increase desirability, particularly for high-status or collectible goods. They refer to this phenomenon as “Accelerating Demand for Novel or eXclusive Assets (AD NOXA).” In these cases, restrictions can enhance a product’s appeal, creating feedback loops that sustain or even increase demand as species become more endangered.

“Conventional strategies like trade restrictions and enforcement tend to increase prices, which generally shrinks the size of a market,” Midgette said. “But for some products, the market won’t disappear completely because there’s a small pool of consumers who are attracted by the rarity and the illicit nature of the product, and probably the status that comes with possession or consumption. For those people, we need a different strategy.”

The paper also examines how supply chains differ across illegal wildlife markets. Ivory trafficking is typically concentrated among a relatively small number of actors, reflecting the difficulty of sourcing and transporting durable goods. In contrast, pangolin scale markets involve many individual hunters supplying a smaller number of buyers, which limits bargaining power at the source. Markets for products such as succulents are more decentralized, with numerous small-scale participants and growing use of online platforms.

“There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to combating illegal wildlife markets because the supply chains are different and the incentives to supply and consume the products vary across communities and over time,” Midgette said. “There are some commonalities though, and understanding what characteristics these markets share and how they differ can help us better tailor our strategies.”

Rather than relying primarily on trade bans and enforcement, the researchers propose tailoring the interventions to the characteristics of individual markets. Depending on the market, that could include focusing enforcement on trafficking networks and intermediaries rather than low-level harvesters, reducing demand for products prized because of their rarity or status, promoting sustainable substitutes where feasible and strengthening community-based conservation efforts in areas where wildlife is harvested.

“This research helps reveal the disconnect between the trillions in social costs associated with illegal wildlife markets and modest investments in research, regulation and enforcement,” Gore said “Our framework advances understanding of market-specific mechanisms and offers a tool for matching interventions to specific markets.”

Image: Succulents in South Africa by Meredith Gore

Paper: Midgette, G., & Gore, M. L. (2026). How illegal wildlife trade adheres to and defies conventional market behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 123(33), Article e2525056123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2525056123 
 

Published on Mon, 08/03/2026 - 16:19