A critical reflection on the application of hot product frameworks to explain the target selection of wildlife products

Abstract

The application of hot product frameworks, such as value, inertia, visibility, and accessibility (VIVA) and concealable, removable, available, (abundance and accessibility), valuable, enjoyable, and disposable (CRAVED/CRAAVED), to illegal markets to understand the selection of wildlife products in them has gained momentum. Originally developed to study property crimes, these frameworks have been adapted for predictive analysis of wildlife product selection. However, their utility in explaining target selection and their empirical testability remain ambiguous. This study critically examined the use of the VIVA and CRA(A)VED frameworks in analyzing wildlife product selection for illegal markets. By reviewing peer‐reviewed studies and conducting a case study on Southeast Asian monitor lizards ( Varanus spp.), we identified the challenges of applying these frameworks to real‐world contexts. These challenges are not merely methodological shortcomings of individual studies but reflect systematic difficulties inherent to applying these frameworks to wildlife contexts. The application of these frameworks to Southeast Asian monitor lizards confirmed that these issues transcend species groups. We also examined issues related to intraspecific variation in measures and variation between harvesters. Our analysis revealed complex interactions between attributes that influence wildlife product selection and identified key challenges to applying these frameworks, including incomplete data, inconsistent attribute measurements, and the dynamic nature of decision‐making during wildlife harvesting. A significant concern is the reliance on trade data, which are typically collected much later in the wildlife trade chain, to infer harvesting decisions. Moreover, we argued that target selection is not solely determined by product attributes. A more problem‐oriented and individualized approach that accounts for opportunity structures relevant to individual harvesters is needed to prevent aggregation fallacies. Thus, applying hot product frameworks to study the selection of target wildlife products cannot be quantitatively tested using an additive equation, and these frameworks should not be applied alone but situated within other theories of crime.