From passion to illegality: Understanding succulent consumers' decision to participate in the illegal online wildlife trade

Abstract The illegal wildlife trade represents a significant threat to biodiversity. Limited research has examined the illegal trade in succulents, plants characterized by their ability to store water in their leaves, stems or roots. The growing popularity of succulents has contributed to the emergence of illicit consumer practices. In addition, the absence of adequate regulatory oversight, combined with the normalization of certain illegal behaviours and the digitization of the economy, facilitates this trade. This study investigates what influences succulent consumers to participate in the illegal online wildlife trade. It is based on semi‐structured interviews with individuals in Quebec who have illegally imported at least one succulent through an online platform. The study suggests that succulent consumers attribute both instrumental values (aesthetic appreciation) and relational values (care practices) to nature, focusing primarily on the plants themselves rather than the ecosystems that sustain them. In practice, they engage in behaviours that may harm these plants. Their participation is driven by experiential and financial motivations, facilitated by accessible and unregulated online markets and reinforced by limited knowledge of legal frameworks and information asymmetries between buyers and sellers. Moreover, the online environment seems to facilitate disconnection from nature. Consumers use various justifications to excuse their illegal actions, such as criticizing authorities and regulations, deflecting responsibility minimizing environmental consequences and failing to recognize nature as a legitimate victim. Although exploratory, this study suggests a complex human–nature relationship behind consumers' decisions to participate in illegal online wildlife trade. While grounded in the succulent trade, these dynamics are not unique to this market and extend to other forms of wildlife trade. Importantly, the study's results highlight a value‐action gap where consumers' desire to connect with and possess nature can contribute to its harm. Neutralization theory provides a useful analytical lens for understanding this tension by revealing how individuals justify actions that contradict their stated values. Based on the findings, the study highlights several consumer‐oriented interventions, most notably, the need to challenge and deconstruct the justifications used by consumers to legitimize their actions. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.