A modified version of CRAVED that breaks down the ‘available’
component into ‘abundant’ and ‘accessible’ (CRAAVED), was proposed
by Pires and Clarke (2012) when studying parrot poaching in
Mexico. In their study, Pires and Clarke found that their measures of
‘abundant’ and ‘accessible’, when controlling for the other, were
significantly related to explaining which species of parrots were
poached the most, suggesting that CRAAVED might be a more
useful model than CRAVED when studying certain types of theft.
This reasoning dictated Petrossian and Clarke's (2014) choice of the
CRAAVED model to examine why certain fish species were more
vulnerable to IUU fishing than others. They used a matched caseecontrol
design to compare 58 species of fish known to be targeted
by illegal fishers with an equal number of closely matched species
not known to be targeted by illegal fishers (controls). They found
that illegally caught species are significantly more Concealable, i.e.
sold through more ports of convenience; Removable, i.e., easily
caught in shallower waters; more Abundant, i.e. caught in larger
quantities; more Accessible, i.e. found in territorialwaters of known
illegal fishing countries; more Valuable, i.e., are larger species;
more Enjoyable, i.e. are found more often in recipes; and easily
Disposable, i.e. are highly commercial. Moreover, there were significant
variations in the risks of capture among the 58 IUU species
on all CRAAVED elements, except Disposable.