Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Full length article

A scenario study of the acceptability to ocean users of more and less

invasive management after shark-human interactions
Peter Simmons a, *, Michael Mehmet b, Belinda Curley c, Nicola Ivory a, Kane Callaghan a,
Kim Wolfenden d, Gang Xie e
a
Charles Sturt University, Institute for Land, Water and Society, Australia
b
Faculty of Business and Law, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
c
Fisheries, Marine Estate Monitoring, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Taylors Beach Road, Taylors Beach, 2316, Australia
d
NSW Shark Program, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Park Avenue, Coffs Harbour 2450, Australia
e
Charles Sturt University, Quantitative Consulting Unit, Wagga Wagga 2678, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Little is known about relationships between features of shark-human interactions and community expectations of
Sharks authorities to respond. Previous research reports attitudes to wildlife management are influenced by context.
Shark management This study comprised three phases. Phase one analysed social media related to shark management, identifying
Experimental vignette
five commonly discussed variables in shark-human interaction contexts likely to influence attitudes towards
Policy
Invasive wildlife management
management response. These context variables were: Level of human use of location; recency of other bites at the
Policy context location; activity of victim; time of day; severity of harm to victim. Phase two used focus groups with ocean users
to validate the Phase one context variables, and refine scenarios and management response options for Phase
three, an experimental survey measuring the influence of context variables on New South Wales ocean user
attitudes to management responses. The article focuses on Phase three, which randomly assigned participants (N
= 1769) one of 48 shark-human interaction scenarios comprising different manipulations of the five context
variables. Participants rated support for 20 shark management response options. Contrary to expectations,
context variables did not influence attitudes to shark management responses. There was almost unanimous
support for education and research as preferred response to managing risk from sharks, and little support for
invasive strategies perceived to harm marine life, such as shark nets and drumlines. Support for shark man­
agement responses decreased as invasiveness of the response increased. The findings reflect community dislike of
‘knee-jerk’ policy making, indicating that attitudes to shark management are relatively stable, and do not
fluctuate in response to specific incidents.

1. Introduction
When shark bites occur, authorities may respond with a range of
management strategies that vary in their social and environmental im­
pacts [21,33,35]. Different in-water and out-of-water approaches to
reducing the risk of shark bites have real and perceived strengths and
weaknesses concerning invasiveness [6,7] to marine life, economic
costs, and ‘effectiveness’ of mitigation [33,35]. Individuals and com­
munities differ in their attitudes to living with and managing other
species. Some will support killing or removing wildlife for little or no
reason [13], while others prefer to coexist and even cohabitate, and will
tolerate danger and inconvenience [36]. Conflicts arise when sub­
sections of the community differ in attitudes to the acceptability of ap­
proaches to management [38]. For authorities, managing
human-wildlife conflict is a ‘juggling act’ ([35], 7) that ‘becomes a
process of mediating between stakeholder tolerance and wildlife
persistence’ ([13], p. 143).
Shark bite situations are complex, and decisions need to be made. It
helps authorities to maximise community acceptance and cooperation if
they can anticipate conflict and proactively target management strate­
gies and communications at stakeholder concerns [13,28]. Thus, au­
thorities will be aided by understanding stakeholder tolerance of

* Correspondence to: Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, 2795, Australia.

E-mail addresses: psimmons@csu.edu.au (P. Simmons), mmehmet@uow.edu.au (M. Mehmet), belinda.curley@dpi.nsw.gov.au (B. Curley), nivory@csu.edu.au
(N. Ivory), kacallaghan@csu.edu.au (K. Callaghan), kim.wolfenden@dpi.nsw.gov.au (K. Wolfenden), gxie@csu.edu.au (G. Xie).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104558
Received 23 November 2020; Received in revised form 21 April 2021; Accepted 23 April 2021
0308-597X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Simmons et al.
different species and types of interactions, perceptions of the effective­
ness of management strategies [13], and their reasoning for preferences
among strategies [33].
Studies increasingly indicate that the general public want action to
mitigate harm from other species, and they prefer non-lethal methods
[18]. Kansky and Knight [14] argue that attitudes to management of
wildlife are always dependent on context, but context is often absent
from conventional survey designs and should be included in the future.
In the case of sharks it remains unclear whether preference for man­
agement strategies is influenced by the context of the interaction. This is
partly due to the difficulty of accessing individuals/communities in the
immediate aftermath of a shark bite, with the risk of re-traumatisation
being ethically problematic.
1.1. Policy background
Shark bite mitigation policy in Australia over the last century has
frequently focused on strategies that either directly reduce the number
of dangerous sharks or may indirectly result in the fatality of sharks and
other marine life [5]. Today, there is vocal disapproval from sections of
the community in states where these strategies (e.g. shark nets, tradi­
tional drumlines) are still used, as well as questions about their expense
and effectiveness [9,10,20].
Recent Australian studies of ocean users have found a clear prefer­
ence for non-lethal cost-effective approaches to reducing shark-human
interactions, and education supporting personal responsibility [10,33].
A survey of beach users in New South Wales (NSW) reported 88%
acceptance of drones, which were perceived as a cost-effective strategy
that has little or no impact on sharks and other marine life [35]. A study
of ocean user attitudes in Western Australia reported low support for
lethal approaches due to perceptions of high economic and ecological
costs [10]. It found highest support for evidence-based education about
sharks and improved warning systems for ocean users [10]. At two
beaches in Sydney NSW, more than 60% of an ocean user sample sup­
ported use of shark nets but were overwhelmingly opposed to general
culling and killing sharks after a shark bite incident [11]. Another NSW
study reported increasing evidence that patrolling beaches and better
emergency response can improve outcomes for humans without the
harm caused by lethal shark mitigation strategies [9].
A large qualitative study of attitudes to shark management in NSW
reported that attitudes are multidimensional and influenced by complex
reasoning [33]. The most common reasons given for supporting partic­
ular strategies concerned features of the mitigation strategies, including
perceptions of the likelihood of harming sharks and other marine life,
cost efficiency, and beliefs about whether a strategy would reassure or
exacerbate public fear [33]. Other studies have found attitudes to shark
bite mitigation strategies are influenced by fear, perceptions of shark
intentionality in bite incidents, and the media [27].
‘Invasive’ and ‘non-invasive’ (referring to physical interference with
wildlife) are frequently used in the literature to describe harm mitiga­
tion strategies (e.g., [7,33,35]). Research drawing on these descriptions
has found perceptions of belonging and territoriality can influence at­
titudes to acceptability of the invasiveness of strategies (e.g., [35]). They
likened shark-human interactions to some bear-human interactions,
where humans hike for recreation through bear habitat. Because
humans enter the domain of sharks for pleasure, Stokes et al. [35] found
many people prefer mitigation strategies that have minimal impacts on
sharks and other wildlife. In another study, Dubois [6] employed the
concept of ‘invasiveness’ to explore acceptability of three categories of
approach to managing bears, non-invasive (e.g., observation), invasive
(e.g., trap and sedate) and population reduction (e.g., culling). An
advantage of using categories such as this is that it does not require the
community to be ‘experts’ on particular methods. Also, while specific
methods and technologies used by authorities to implement each
approach are likely to evolve over time, the notion of ‘invasiveness’ will
endure. Dubois [6] reported that although there were some differences
2
Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558
among subpopulations (e.g., gender, occupation), acceptability of a
management strategy was inversely proportional to invasiveness.
1.2. Shark bites and mitigation strategies in NSW
The majority of the NSW population of 8.1 million [3] live near the
2137 km coastline and records of shark related fatalities go back to the
early nineteenth century. In 1937 a programme of shark meshing
(hereafter ‘shark nets’) was introduced and today there are 51 beaches
netted in the most populous region of NSW [32]. Similar to other parts of
the world, incidents of harm caused by sharks in Australia, including
NSW, have increased over recent decades due to a range of interacting
social and ecological factors (e.g., increasing population and
ocean-based activities, seasonal shark movements; [23,37]). Although
the risk of shark bite remains low, there is still concern and expectation
from community for some protective measures, particularly when in­
cidents do occur [11].
In 2015 the NSW Shark Management Strategy (SMS) was introduced
with the aim ‘to increase protection for beachgoers whilst minimising
harm to sharks and other marine life’ [24]. The SMS includes a range of
‘shark bite mitigation’ approaches and trials encompassing non-invasive
approaches such as in-water listening stations, drones and helicopters,
and more invasive approaches such as SMART drumlines and shark nets.
It also includes an education programme (SharkSmart) and research
initiatives on the biology and ecology of dangerous sharks, mitigation
strategies, and community attitudes.
This project sought to understand influences on attitudes to the
acceptability of different approaches to management. Effective shark
management is aided by understanding attitudes and behaviours of
those most affected by decisions [10], and stakeholders increasingly
expect their opinions to be considered in policy deliberation [33]. We
were particularly interested in understanding the views of people with a
special interest in the ocean, such as tourism and environmental groups,
and regular users of the ocean such as swimmers, kayakers, surfers, and
lifeguards.
The main aims of this project were to:
1. Improve understanding of community attitudes in NSW to shark
management options, and
2. Improve understanding of contextual influences on attitudes to shark
bite mitigation approaches and how authorities should respond
following an interaction.
2. Method
The article focuses on the third phase of a three-phase project. The
first phase involved qualitative analysis of public social media discus­
sions relating to shark encounters and the second phase involved use of
focus group discussions to refine the development of experimental vi­
gnettes (scenarios). The third phase details the results of an online
experimental scenario study. Forty-eight vignettes depicting fictional
shark-human interactions were created to explore ocean user attitudes
to the acceptability of 20 shark management strategies available to
authorities.
2.1. Experimental vignette methodology (EVM)
Aguinis and Bradley’s [2] decision points for experimental vignette
methodology (EVM) were used to guide the current study design and
implementation. EVM was deemed appropriate because vignette (sce­
nario) surveys enable researchers to isolate and manipulate variables in
the manner of an experiment, with the aim of identifying causal re­
lationships between variables [2]. By altering variables in the presen­
tation of scenarios, researchers can ask their research questions
indirectly, this enables investigation of influences on attitudes that
participants may be unaware of, or not feel comfortable discussing [8].
P. Simmons et al. Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558

This project prioritised a shorter questionnaire and larger sample, Table 1

employing a between-person design where each survey participant is The shark-human interaction scenario variables.
presented with just a single scenario [12]. Evans et al. [8] provide Five context variables
detailed advice on the development of scenarios, emphasising that sce­ 1. Human 2. 3. Time 4. Activity 5.
narios should be realistic, but avoid placing the respondent in the use at Recency of day of victim Severity
location of bites at of harm
scenario.
location
Two qualitative phases of research were used to determine the se­ Variable Patrolled or Recent or Sunrise Swimming Bumped
lection and presentation of variables for the scenarios used. In the first levels Unpatrolled Ten years or or Surfing or Injured
phase, 878 comments from publicly available Facebook and Twitter ago Midday or Killed
discussions (from March 2018–May 2019) relating to shark encounters Scenario Imagine this where Just a person was
text happened there have after swimming bumped
and management in NSW in 2018 were coded using clause boundary
today at a been two sunrise close to by a Great
analysis [19] and thematic and structural coding [30]. While social patrolled shark shore White
media may not be statistically representative of the whole community, it beach bites this shark but
has been shown to distil broader community conversations (e.g., [31, year. not
injured.
33]).
Imagine this where the Just a person was bitten
Two important dimensions of influence on attitudes to shark man­ happened last shark after surfing by a Great
agement emerged from the social media discussions: 1) features of the today at an bite was midday White
approach to shark management (e.g., perception of harm to marine life), unpatrolled 10 years shark and
and 2) the context for incidents of harm to humans caused by sharks. beach ago. required
many
Five main context variables were identified as most likely to influence
stitches.
attitudes to the acceptability of different management options: level of Read scenarios from left to right was bitten
human use of the location; recency of bite incidents at the location; time Example: Imagine this happened today at a patrolled by a Great
of day the incident occurred; activity of victim at the time; and the beach where there have been two shark bites this year. White
Just after sunrise a person swimming close to shore was shark and
severity of harm (either physical or psychological). Thus, the researchers
bumped by a Great White shark but not injured. died.
generated 48 hypothetical shark-human interaction scenarios, each
containing one level of each of the five context variables, to explore the
influence of variations in those five context variables on support for to approaches to wildlife management. Recent Australian research
different shark management strategies. findings have found support for community education and research as
Aguinis and Bradley [2] recommend piloting scenarios with the options for shark management [10,33]. Thus, a fourth category was
target population to enhance realism. In the second qualitative phase of added, ‘Education and research’ (this included education directed at
this research, six semi-structured focus group discussions were held with stakeholders and the wider public, and research to improve under­
54 beach and ocean users along the NSW coast. Focus groups were held standing of matters believed to be related to shark bite mitigation). The
in locations both with and without well-known recent experiences of final four categories of shark management response were:
harm from sharks, and an online group was held for surfers along the
coast. A research assistant used internet searches and phone to identify 1) Education and research;
organisations with different interests in the ocean, and invite partici­ 2) Non-invasive approaches;
pation. Between eight and ten discussion participants were sought for 3) Invasive approaches;
each group, not too many to manage discussion focus, but enough to 4) Population reduction approaches.
enable discussion of different experiences and perspectives [26]. Dis­
cussions openly explored the relative importance of context variables The researchers discussed the level of invasiveness of shark man­
likely to influence attitudes to shark management (and found attitudes agement response options (see Table 4) and assigned each option to one
closely aligned with social media comments). Preliminary versions of of the four categories. For example, the shark management option ‘Try
the scenarios and shark management responses were presented to focus to find and kill the shark responsible’ was assigned to the category
groups participants, who discussed their preferences and commented on Population reduction approaches. The survey required participants to
the realism and clarity of the scenarios and management responses. indicate support for each shark management option on a 7-point Likert
There was a clear preference for management responses that included a scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Moderately disagree; 3 = Slightly
short description alongside the name of the strategy. Given this finding, disagree; 4 = Neither agree nor disagree; 5 = Slightly agree; 6 =
and other research showing mixed understanding of mitigation methods Moderately agree; 7 = Strongly agree). Each category comprises four
amongst the public [11], and a lack of awareness of the lethality of some shark management options, thus total scores for each of the four cate­
methods [35], the final survey used in the current study included short gories could range from 4 to 28, with higher scores indicating higher
descriptions of each strategy (see Table 4). levels of support for that category of management options. Each cate­
The article focuses on the third and final phase of the study, an online gory demonstrated adequate to excellent internal consistency among the
vignette (scenario) survey. Each scenario was designed to include all five four responses it comprised, with Cronbach alphas ranging from.66
context variables. Each context variable had at least two variations, to.92. A further four shark management strategies were measured but
referred to as ‘levels’ (for example, ‘Time of day’ had two levels: sunrise not assigned to any of the categories. They were no management response,
and midday). The levels occurred equally across the scenarios. All reminding the public about the importance of sharks to marine ecosystems,
possible scenarios were generated by finding the Cartesian product, that investing in personal deterrent technologies, and prioritising beaches popular
is, multiplying all attribute levels (i.e., contextual variables) with each with tourists.
other. Thus, in this study, with 5 context variables, each with two or
three levels, the total number of scenarios was 48 (i.e., 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 ×
3). Reading from left to right, Table 1 shows all possible combinations of 2.3. Administration of survey
the 5 context variables.
The survey was conducted online for one month from 19 July 2019
2.2. Shark management strategies/responses using Qualtrics software.
It opened with demographics and questions about respondent use of
The study adapted Dubois’ [6] notion of three levels of invasiveness the beach or ocean, and then randomly assigned each respondent one of

3
P. Simmons et al. Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558

the 48 shark-human interaction scenarios. Respondents were then pre­
sented an identical series of management options authorities might
choose from in response to the scenario, such as ‘Invest more in shark-
related research’ (see Table 4 for full list of management options), and
asked to indicate their level of agreement with each.
The survey was open to all Australian residents aged 18 or over.
Analysis in the current paper was restricted to respondents residing in
NSW. Participants were recruited using emails and Facebook messaging
to ocean and beach stakeholder organisations identifiable through
Google and Facebook requesting they host and distribute a link to the
survey. Links to the survey were sent to 29 coastal and city councils, 127
surf and surf lifesaving clubs, as well as coastal businesses and clubs, and
15 large coastal community Facebook pages. Records of actual use of the
link by organisations were not obtained. The project also paid $1176 for
targeted Facebook distribution of the survey link to users aged 18 plus
and matching to a list of 37 coastal interest key words (e.g., beach,
surfing, SCUBA, marine) in all coastal areas of NSW, and up to 50 km
inland. Most respondents were recruited through Facebook. Facebook
has the greatest reach and active user engagement of all social media
platforms (83% of Australians aged over 14 access Facebook in an
average month) [29].
2.4. Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were first used to summarise community atti­
tudes to the 20 shark management options. Our second aim was to
improve understanding of contextual influences on attitudes to shark
management, in particular to identify patterns in responses to changes
across the five context variables (e.g., Swimmer injured at Patrolled
beach at Midday). An analysis approach that was able to focus on
multiple levels of data simultaneously was considered important [2].
Bayesian networks (BN) can be considered as an alternative approach to
logistic regression for understanding probabilistic relations among var­
iables [17]. BN was chosen here as the principal analysis tool for its
ability to focus simultaneously on a large number of variables [15] with
multiple levels of data, and its ability to handle numeric and categorical
variables [1]. Bayesian networks are recommended for modelling and
recognising patterns and relationships among multiple environmental
variables [1], especially for management and decision-making where
uncertainty is an important consideration [15].

Fig. 1. Network model with probability figures for an example scenario (40). The nodes on the far left show the five scenario variables for scenario 40: ‘U’ for
Unpatrolled Beach: ‘T’ for Ten years since previous shark bite; ‘K’ for victim killed; ‘M’ for Midday and ‘W’ for victim Swimming at the time of the incident. The row
of nodes at the top show the probability of high and low support for the four different categories of response (Education and Research; Non-invasive; Invasive;
Population reduction). The characteristics of respondents (including demographic and activity differences) were also considered to be important variables.

4
P. Simmons et al. Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558

In a Bayesian graphic each node represents a variable and each link Table 3
represents the probabilistic dependency relationship between two Support for shark management categories for full sample (N = 1769).
associated variables. Since a BN model represents the joint distribution Mean (SD) Range α
of all variables included in the model, any one (or more than one) var­
Education and research (risk avoidance/ 24.85 4–28 .69
iable(s) may be selected as a target variable (equivalent to the ‘response’ responsibility) (3.66)
variable in a regression model) and various inferential analyses can be Non-Invasive (monitoring and alerts) 22.84 4–28 .66
performed by assuming different scenarios, in terms of the ‘findings’ for (4.61)
other variables [16]. After trialling several Bayesian belief network Invasive (in-water shark nets, SMART drumlines) 10.33 4–28 .73
(5.66)
models developed using Netica [25], the researchers agreed the graphic Population Reduction (culling, drumlines) 7.11 (5.84) 4–28 .92
model presented in Fig. 1 best matched the study’s data and focus [16].
All variables under study are networked and influenced simultaneously
by each other. Fig. 1 shows the interactions for an example scenario.
Sensitivity analyses (SA) were conducted with each category of
response to assess the influence of the contextual and respondent
characteristics on desirability of shark management strategies. SA is
defined as “the analysis of how sensitive the results of a belief update
(propagation of evidence) is to variations in the set of evidence…” ([16],
p. 303). SA is used to rank the relative strength of the associations Table 4
Support for individual shark management strategies in total sample (N = 1769).
among a group of predictor variables (e.g., scenario context variables)
with respect to a selected target variable (e.g., shark management Please indicate the extent to which you think Invasiveness Mean 1–7
authorities should respond to the scenario category (SD)
response).
above with the following actions:

Educate the public about avoiding high risk Educate 6.37

2.5. Respondents situations (e.g. signs on the beach, (1.14)
information stands)
The sample comprised 1769 respondents from 381 unique NSW Remind the public about the importance of 6.26
postcodes, mostly on or near the NSW coast, with approximately equal sharks for a healthy marine ecosystem (1.48)
Better inform people about sharks Educate 6.24
numbers of males and females (48% female). Almost all respondents (1.14)
(96%) were beach and ocean users with 85% reporting use more than Remind the public that individuals enter the Educate 6.21
once every two months. Approximately 87% of the sample reported water at their own risk (1.30)
having three or more beach activities, and 43% had five or more ac­ Invest more in shark-related research Educate 6.03
(1.46)
tivities. The most common activities were swimming, surfing, snorkel­
Use unmanned aerial detection to identify Non-invasive 5.92
ling, land-based activities, conservation, body surfing and boat fishing. potentially dangerous sharks and issue (1.41)
The sample were largely frequent beach and ocean users, with 79% of alerts (i.e. drones)
the sample classified as visiting the beach more than monthly, and just Non-invasive action such as surveillance Non-invasive 5.89
over half of all people (53%) using the beach at least weekly (high fre­ (1.77)
Use technology that detects potentially Non-invasive 5.80
quency). Only 12% of the sample were considered very low frequency dangerous sharks in the water (e.g. tagging (1.62)
beach users (1–2 times per year or less). Six percent of the sample were and listening stations) and issue alerts
categorised as seasonal beach users, which reflects a high frequency Use manned aerial detection to identify Non-invasive 5.23
(daily or weekly) use of the beach in the warmer summer months. potentially dangerous sharks and issue (1.74)
alerts (e.g. planes and helicopters)
The sample contained approximately equal numbers of males (51%)
Invest more in developing personal deterrent 5.09
and females (48%). Age was normally distributed in the sample, with a technologies (1.63)
mean age of 45 years (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics for age). Prioritise allocation of shark management 4.63
resources to beaches that are popular with (1.76)
tourists
3. Findings and discussion
Install shark proof barriers (e.g. rigid barriers) Invasive 3.54
where people can safely swim (2.09)
3.1. Aim 1. Improve understanding of community attitudes to shark This incident requires no response from 2.98
management options authorities (1.88)
Capture and relocate potentially dangerous Invasive 2.85
sharks that come close to shore in this area (2.03)
3.1.1. Preference for shark mitigation approach inversely related to
(e.g. SMART drumlines)
invasiveness Kill potentially dangerous sharks that come Population 1.98
The findings showed highest support for strategies that are mini­ close to shore in this area, as long as other (1.77)
mally invasive (i.e. education/research) and lowest support for strate­ marine life are not harmed (e.g. selective
fishing by commercial fishers)
gies that are maximally invasive (i.e. population reduction). Table 3
Take invasive in-water action such as Invasive 1.97
shows the mean scores for the four categories of shark management, catching and netting (1.73)
with a large gap between invasive and less invasive approaches. Stan­ Use shark nets, even if it means harming some Invasive 1.96
dard deviations show increasing variability in preferences as the inva­ sharks and other marine life (1.73)
siveness of the management category increases. That is, the highest Try to find and kill the shark responsible Population 1.82
(1.69)
amount of variability in preferences is seen in response to the most
Reduce the population of potentially Population 1.77
dangerous sharks (1.64)
Table 2 Kill sharks that come close to shore in this Population 1.54
Sample characteristics: age. area, even if it means harming some other (1.42)
marine life (e.g. shark nets, traditional
N Mean (SD) Range drumlines)
Total 1769 45.17 (15.20) 18–84 NB: For all strategies the possible range was 1–7. Invasiveness categories: Edu­
Male 898 46.88 (15.21) 18–84
cation = Education and research; Non-Invasive; Invasive; Population = Popu­
Female 845 43.61 (14.94) 18–81
lation Reduction. Four single items not assigned to a category.

5
P. Simmons et al.
invasive category (i.e., population reduction) compared to the least
invasive category (i.e., education and research).
3.1.2. Support for individual shark management strategies
Table 4 lists the 20 management strategies that were provided to
participants. It provides the mean score for support for each individual
strategy using a Likert scale, with response options ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The list in Table 4 shows a clear trend from the most-preferred and
least-invasive Education and research options down to least-preferred
and most-invasive Population reduction options, although standard
deviations suggest caution in ranking and adjacent comparisons. These
findings are consistent with most recent studies [10,33] although Stokes
et al. [35] found highest support for drones, and Gray and Gray [11]
reported stronger support for shark nets than these findings suggest. Six
main themes concerning the more and less desirable characteristics of
different approaches to management are discussed below.
3.1.3. Clear preference for leaving sharks and marine life undisturbed
Respondents showed a clear preference for strategies that leave
sharks alone in their ocean home over interventions that may harm
sharks and other marine life. Almost all respondents strongly agreed that
the public should be educated about avoiding high-risk situations,
informed about sharks, and reminded that they enter the water at their
own risk. Further, the majority of respondents strongly agreed that au­
thorities should invest in more shark-related research. These findings
suggest people ascribe personal responsibility onto individuals to
manage their risk of incidents of harm caused by a shark, and support
activities such as education that help the public to help themselves to
avoid high-risk behaviours, and research that can help us to better un­
derstand sharks and ways to avoid risk. Almost all respondents strongly
agreed with reminding the public about the importance of sharks for a
healthy ecosystem, this was the second most popular of all management
options.
3.1.4. Non-invasive options strongly supported
In-water and out-of-water surveillance options were generally sup­
ported. Consistent with Stokes et al. [35] there was strong support for
drones. More than two-thirds (n = 1294) of all respondents moderately
agreed or strongly agreed that authorities should use drones to help
detect potentially dangerous sharks and issue alerts. Similar numbers
supported non-invasive action such as surveillance and technology that
detects potentially dangerous sharks in the water and issues alerts (e.g.,
tagging and listening stations). This strong support for tagging appears
somewhat contradictory, given that tagging for in-water listening sta­
tion alerts is generally done in NSW by SMART drumlines, which were
rated as a much less popular shark management option when presented
as an example for relocating sharks [‘Capture and relocate potentially
dangerous sharks that come close to shore in this area (e.g., SMART
drumlines)’]. However this contradiction may be explained in one, or
both, of two ways: 1) participants may lack knowledge of technologies
([11,35]), in particular how tagging and SMART drumlines are used in
NSW (i.e., participants may not be aware that tagging can involve the
use of SMART drumlines); or 2) the results might also indicate that
preferences for shark management strategies are influenced by the
intended use of the technology, where SMART drumlines used in the
context of tagging are more acceptable than the use of SMART drumlines
for the purpose of capturing and relocating potentially dangerous
sharks.
Although done from outside the water, the least preferred of the non-
invasive surveillance strategies were helicopters and planes. This is
consistent with Stokes et al. [35] and may reflect attitudes expressed
previously concerning perceptions of substantially higher economic
costs associated with the use of helicopters and planes, in comparison to
drones [33].
6
Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558
3.1.5. Low support for invasive options
Overall, respondents were considerably more supportive of non-
invasive than invasive approaches to shark management. The most
preferred of the in-water invasive options, although not practical for
most beaches experiencing substantial ocean swell, was installing rigid
shark-proof barriers ‘where people can safely swim’. The next preferred
was ‘capture and relocate dangerous sharks that come close to shore in
this area (e.g. SMART Drumlines)’. However, just 15% of respondents
moderately agreed or strongly agreed with the use of SMART drumlines,
and 56% moderately disagreed or strongly disagreed with their use.
The least preferred invasive in-water option was shark nets. Seventy-
eight percent of respondents moderately disagreed or strongly disagreed
with the use of shark nets when presented thus: ‘Authorities should use
shark nets, even if it means harming some sharks and other marine life’.
3.1.6. Untargeted population reduction least preferred of all approaches
The least preferred option was indiscriminate killing of sharks and
other marine life: ‘Kill sharks that come close to shore in this area, even if
it means harming some other marine life (e.g. shark nets, traditional
drumlines)’. Among the 1769 respondents, 88% moderately disagreed
or strongly disagreed with this approach, and just 5% moderately agreed
or strongly agreed with this response. When killing targeted potentially
dangerous sharks with the proviso that it did not harm other marine life
(e.g., selective fishing by commercial killers) it was only slightly more
acceptable. However, just 9% agreed or strongly agreed with this
approach, and 79% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this approach.
3.1.7. Some response from authorities required
Only 6% of the sample strongly agreed with the item ‘No response
from authorities is required’. Consistent with Liordos et al. [18], most
participants wanted some kind of action.
3.1.8. Support for developing personal deterrents
There was strong support for the option ‘Invest more in developing
personal deterrent technologies’, almost two-thirds of respondents
(65%) slightly, moderately or strongly agreed with this management
option.
3.1.9. Tourist beaches are a priority for most
Generally, respondents endorsed: ‘Prioritise allocation of manage­
ment resources to beaches that are popular with tourists’. Fifty-nine
percent of the sample slightly, moderately or strongly agreed with this
shark management response. However, one fifth of the sample disagreed
with prioritising the allocation of resources to tourist beaches (7%
slightly, 7% moderately and 8% strongly). Furthermore, a substantial
number of respondents (19%) indicated they neither agreed nor dis­
agreed with this response. Thus, while most respondents had a prefer­
ence for prioritising resources to popular tourist beaches, there were also
41% who either did not support this or were not particularly passionate
about investing resources at popular tourist beaches.
3.2. Aim 2. Improve understanding of contextual influences on attitudes
to shark bite mitigation approaches and how authorities should respond
following an interaction
3.2.1. Context variables have little influence on preferences for
management approach
Attitudes to the different categories of management strategy tended
to be stable across the scenarios and were only marginally influenced by
the variables measured. The Netica sensitivity analysis [4] indicated
that the context variables had only a small influence on support for each
of the management categories (see Table 5). None of the context vari­
ables alone explained more than 1% of the variance in any of the atti­
tudes towards shark management.
Education/research was relatively the most sensitive to scenario
context variables (13%), but even the highest association was minimal.
P. Simmons et al. Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558

Table 5 variables on attitudes to shark management. Researchers observed in the

Sensitivity analysis (%). earlier social media and focus group phases of the project that people
Node Education & Non- Invasive Population were more tolerant of some context variables. For example, shark-
research invasive reduction human interactions at sunrise and sunset are considered more predict­
Scenario context 13.200 8.010 3.250 4.610 able and less demanding of management action by authorities. Re­
variables searchers conferred and agreed that the highest tolerance for an incident
Patrolled/ 0.158 0.954 0.004 0.132 of harm caused by sharks should be associated with a surfer bumped at
unpatrolled sunrise on an unpatrolled beach, where the last incident was more than
Recency of bites 0.031 0.039 0.004 0.000
Severity of 0.362 0.606 0.153 0.232
ten years ago (these variables were represented in Scenario 12), and that
harm the lowest tolerance would be where a swimmer was killed at midday on
Time of day 0.956 0.492 0.001 0.204 a patrolled beach where there had been two recent incidents (Scenario
User activity 0.317 0.486 0.043 0.017 37). Support for different shark management options in the highest
Person factors
(Fig. 2) and lowest (Fig. 3) tolerance scenarios was compared.
Age 0.004 0.016 0.018 0.003
Gender 0.008 0.003 0.016 0.026 It was anticipated that support for management strategies of all kinds
Frequency of 0.232 0.402 0.689 0.902 would be higher in the low tolerance scenario than in the high tolerance
beach use scenario. Figs. 2 and 3 and Table 6, show just small differences between
the high and low tolerance scenarios. Both scenarios showed lower
support for Invasive and Population reduction than the baseline score
The table suggests that attitudes to Invasive and Population Reduction
for the whole sample.
strategies were least sensitive to changes in the context variables.
Figs. 2 and 3 show there were some variations between different
scenario samples in gender and ocean use, however, support for edu­
3.2.2. Influence of highest and lowest tolerance scenarios
cation/research and non-invasive strategies was strong across all sub­
A further attempt was made to identify effects of the context
groups. Overall, the contextual features of a single shark-human

Fig. 2. Highest tolerance scenario.

7
P. Simmons et al. Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558

Fig. 3. Lowest tolerance scenario.

3.3. Limitations and future directions

Table 6
Preferences for shark management in high/low tolerance scenarios and baseline.
Facebook recruitment has advantages of low cost, speed of data
Condition Education & Non- Invasive Population collection and precision of targeting [34]. However, it is less accurate in
research invasive reduction
national probability sampling and participants cannot be verified as
Baseline 97.6% 92.4% 17.1% 10.1% accurately as a phone survey, with the researcher needing to trust
Low 97.6% 92.7% 12.2% 4.88%
Facebook algorithms [34]. Therefore, the use of Facebook to recruit
Tolerance
High 100% 90.0% 15.0% 5% participants, instead of stratified random sampling, means it cannot be
Tolerance assumed that the sample represents the entire NSW population of beach
and ocean users. However, the sample is large, and the demographic
variables obtained reveal a heterogeneous sample of beach and ocean
interaction had little influence on the actions the subgroups said they users. That the sample mostly comprised the target population of in­
believed authorities should take in response to that interaction. terest should enhance the external validity of a vignette study such as
The general similarity of attitudinal responses to different but single this [12].
incidents is consistent with the finding of another study, that people do The experimental design required that demographic characteristics
not like what they often refer to as ‘knee-jerk’ policy, or ‘policy on the of participants vary randomly across the scenarios, in order to attribute
run’. Instead they prefer approaches to managing shark-human in­ variation in support for management approaches to manipulation of the
teractions that are determined by evidence and sound reason [22]. ‘No context variables, rather than sample differences. A strength of the study
response from authorities’ was found to be an unpopular option, but is that review of the profiles of randomly assigned respondents for the
people dislike authorities and politicians making policy decisions while five context variables showed they were very similar when compared by
emotions are running high in the aftermath of a tragic incident. gender, age, frequency of beach use and beach activity, but there may be
other participant characteristics that could vary across the scenarios that
were not measured.

8
P. Simmons et al.
It has been argued that context variables influence attitudes to
wildlife management [14], but they were not found to be influential
here. One explanation is that the variables selected were not the right
ones. The process for selecting variables, by a team of experienced shark
management researchers, and in accordance with recommendations for
EVM studies [2], has been detailed here. Future studies might deliber­
ately seek other context variables, perhaps involving victim or media
[27] or economic variables. Another explanation is that attitudes to
shark-bite mitigation are firmly held to the extent that a single incident
is unlikely to change them. This would be consistent with another study
that found aversion to ‘knee-jerk’ policy reactions to single shark in­
cidents [33]. Yet another explanation is that a written hypothetical
scenario simulation, where choices carry no real consequences [12],
may not be sufficient to generate emotional or other responses required
for changes in attitudes. The scenarios were also not location specific. In
the aftermath of a real-world experience of a tragic shark incident, as
distinct from a hypothetical scenario, the consequences for those
directly affected could be distressing and prolonged. In times of
heightened emotion people can and do change their focus, views and
behaviour. Therefore, different results might be found in research that
explores the impact of contextual features on support for shark man­
agement strategies following a real and not hypothetical interaction.
Future research might consider utilising a short video containing real or
simulated media reports of a shark incident, to increase the salience,
impact and/or credibility of the scenarios. Including more details, such
as naming victims, visual images, and using real names of actual bea­
ches, may also make the scenarios more realistic.
Another challenge for future research is consideration of the actual
as well as perceived effectiveness of strategies on support for mitigation
strategies. A key consideration in application of shark detection and
reporting methods is potential for negative consequences. Research
conducted in localities where detection and reporting strategies have
been trialled in NSW have found that frequent detection of the presence
of sharks can increase community fear and decrease support for the
detection method (see [33]). Thus, future research could explore the
extent to which the long-term use of detection methods might increase
or decrease community fear and thereby influence support for their
continued use.
4. Conclusions
The current study makes several contributions to understanding
ocean user thinking and will help policymakers plan and communicate
responses to incidents of shark-human interaction. Some findings here
parallel conclusions from studies on management of terrestrial wildlife.
Similar to Liordos et al. [18] the current study found people generally
require a response from authorities when interactions occur. Findings
here indicate most ocean users would prefer authorities’ response to
shark-human interactions be non-invasive, such as provide information
and surveillance. As Dubois [6] reported with bear management, the
current study found that the acceptability of an authority’s response to a
shark-human interaction was inversely related to the level of invasive­
ness to marine life.
Context is often considered important in determining the accept­
ability of different methods of wildlife management [14,18], however
the current research (a rare study of the influence of context, according
to [14]) found that context had no influence on acceptability of different
management options to a shark-human interaction. Stability in attitudes
concerning context is consistent with other findings, in that the most
common reasons for supporting particular mitigation strategies relate to
features of the strategies themselves [33], and that the community
dislike knee-jerk policy making, preferring considered decisions that are
respectful to both humans and marine life [22]. Another consideration is
that where people take recreation in other species’ natural domains,
people prefer mitigation strategies with low impacts on those other
species [35].
9
Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558
Support for invasive and population reduction strategies was
consistently low. The lowest support was for strategies such as shark nets
and drumlines that can indiscriminately kill sharks and other marine
life. It found much lower support for shark nets than Gray and Gray’s
[11] small sample from two beaches in Sydney, NSW. However, their
surveys were conducted in 2015, when alternative strategies (e.g.
SMART drumlines, drones) had not yet been trialled or promoted in
NSW.
Two preferences were found to underpin attitudes to the accept­
ability of different approaches that can help guide policy responses.
Consistent with previous Australian studies [10,33] there was over­
whelming support for authorities helping people to accept responsibility
for their own safety, such as beach signage, information, research, and
advice that improves understanding of how to avoid unnecessary risk.
The study also found people were in favour of less invasive strategies
that offer protection to humans but do not negatively impact sharks and
other marine life, such as drone surveillance. Based on the findings of
the current study, authorities should favour approaches that promote
personal responsibility such as education and research, and that are
non-invasive to the marine environment. This study found these ap­
proaches are supported both as ongoing management strategies and,
because 24 of the 48 scenarios occurred ‘where the last shark bite was 10
years ago’, as a first response to shark-human interactions.
‘Invasiveness’ may be a usefully familiar concept for planning and
communicating about shark management options, because it does not
require respondents to be experts. The current study found the choice of
words and detail in descriptions makes a difference to non-experts asked
to rate acceptability of management options. There is mixed stakeholder
understanding of mitigation methods [11] and their characteristics and
lethality [35]. ‘Invest in more shark-related research’ was an option
popularly supported alongside education. However SMART drumlines
used to tag sharks for research were a much less popular management
option.
Response options that mentioned harm or killing of sharks and other
marine life were generally the least preferred. ‘Targeted’ killing of
dangerous sharks that did not harm other marine life was a little more
acceptable than shark nets and traditional drumlines which, although
strategically designed and situated, are not discriminating in their catch.
However, overall, there was low support for killing sharks, even when
other marine life could be protected.
The scenarios used here did not specify location for the single shark-
human interaction. The findings suggest that attitudes to shark-bite
mitigation are quite stable for the wider population of ocean users,
and that authorities’ efforts should focus communication and other re­
sponses on the needs of those most directly affected. Future scenario
studies might include use of emotion-inducing variables such as media
accounts and location.
It is likely there will always be conflicting viewpoints about the best
way to manage potentially dangerous sharks [35], but the weight of
recent and growing evidence suggests that policies that respect marine
life and help humans to take greater responsibility when entering the
water, will be those best supported by ocean users.
Funding
This work was supported by the Institute for Land, Water and Soci­
ety, Charles Sturt University and a grant from the NSW Department of
Primary Industries (Fisheries) [Cont17/962], Australia.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Peter Simmons: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing, Project administration, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Michael Mehmet: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
P. Simmons et al. Marine Policy 129 (2021) 104558

& editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Belinda Curley: [15] R.A. Kelly, A.J. Jakeman, O. Barreteau, M.E. Borsuk, S. ElSawah, S.H. Hamilton,
H. van Delden, Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Nicola
environmental assessment and management, Environ. Model. Softw. 47 (2013)
Ivory: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - review & 159–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.05.005.
editing. Kane Callaghan: Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Kim [16] U.B. Kjaerulff, A.L. Madsen, Bayesian Networks and Influence Diagrams: A Guide
Wolfenden: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Gang Xie: to Construction and Analysis, Springer, 2008. 〈https://link.springer.com/book/
10.1007%2F978-0-387-74101-7〉.
Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. [17] M. Langarizadeh, F. Moghbeli, Applying naive Bayesian networks to disease
prediction: a systematic review, Acta Inform. Med. 24 (5) (2016) 364–369, https://
doi.org/10.5455/aim.2016.24.364-369.
Declaration of Competing Interest [18] V. Liordos, V.J. Kontsiotis, M. Georgari, K. Baltzi, I. Baltzi, Public acceptance of
management methods under different human–wildlife conflict scenarios, Sci. Total
Environ. 579 (2017) 685–693, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.040.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [19] J.R. Martin, Evolving systemic functional linguistics: beyond the clause, Funct.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Linguist. 1 (1) (2014) 1–24.
the work reported in this paper. [20] D. McPhee, Likely Effectiveness of Netting or Other Capture Programs as a Shark
Hazard Mitigation Strategy in Western Australia, Department of Fisheries, Perth,
Western Australia, 2012. [Cited 23 June 2020]. 〈http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Do
References cuments/occasional_publications/fop108.pdf〉.
[21] D.P. McPhee, C. Blount, Shark Deterrents and Detectors: Review of Bather
Protection Technologies, 2015. [Cited 23 November 2020]. 〈https://research.bond
[1] P.A. Aguilera, A. Fernández, R. Fernández, R. Rumí, A. Salmerón, Bayesian
.edu.au/en/publications/shark-deterrents-and-detectors-review-of-bather-protecti
networks in environmental modelling, Environ. Model. Softw. 26 (12) (2011)
on-techno〉.
1376–1388, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.06.004.
[22] M.M.I. Mehmet, P. Simmons, Operationalizing social media in upstream social
[2] H. Aguinis, K.J. Bradley, Best practice recommendations for designing and
marketing, J. Soc. Mark. 9 (3) (2019) 288–308, https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-
implementing experimental vignette methodology studies, Organ. Res. Methods 17
08-2018-0074.
(4) (2014) 351–371, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952.
[23] S.R. Midway, T. Wagner, G.H. Burgess, Trends in global shark attacks, PLoS ONE
[3] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), States and Territories Annual Population
14 (2) (2019), 0211049, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211049.
Change, 2020. 〈https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/310
[24] New South Wales Shark Program 2020/21, New South Wales Department of
1.0Main%20Features3Dec%202019?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodn
Primary Industries. [Cited 1 September 2020]. 〈https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.
o=3101.0&issue=Dec%202019&num=&view=〉.
au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/1240814/nsw-shark-program-2020-21-map.pdf〉.
[4] A.J. Brosnan, Sensitivity analysis of a Bayesian belief network in a tactical
[25] Norsys Software Corp, Netica version 6.05, 2018.
intelligence application, J. Battlef. Technol. 9 (2) (2006) 33, https://search.
[26] M.Q. Patton, Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and
informit.org/doi/10.3316/INFORMIT.111221187054216.
Practice, 2015.
[5] B.K. Chapman, D. McPhee, Global shark attack hotspots: identifying underlying
[27] C.L. Pepin-Neff, T. Wynter, Reducing fear to influence policy preferences: an
factors behind increased unprovoked shark bite incidence, Ocean Coast. Manag.
experiment with sharks and beach safety policy options, Mar. Policy 88 (2018)
133 (2016) 72–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.09.010.
222–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.023.
[6] S.D. Dubois, Understanding Humane Expectations: Public and Expert Attitudes
[28] S. Philpot, K. Hipel, P. Johnson, Identifying potential conflict in land-use planning
Towards Human-Wildlife Interactions, 2014. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation cited
using a values-centered e-participation tool: a Canadian case study in aggregate
on 13/11/2020 from: 〈https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/colle ctions/ubctheses/
mining, in: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System
24/items/1.0165855〉.
Sciences, 2019. 〈https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1401&cont
[7] S. Dubois, H.W. Harshaw, Exploring “humane” dimensions of wildlife, Hum.
ext=hicss-52〉.
Dimens. Wildl. 18 (1) (2013) 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/
[29] Roy Morgan Research, Facebook on Top But Instagram and Pinterest Growing
10871209.2012.694014.
Fastest, 2019. [Cited 13 November 2020]. 〈http://www.roymorgan.com/findings
[8] S.C. Evans, M.C. Roberts, J.W. Keeley, J.B. Blossom, C.M. Amaro, A.M. Garcia, C.
/7979-social-media-trends-march-2019-201905170731〉.
O. Stough, K.S. Canter, R. Robles, G.M. Reed, Vignette methodologies for studying
[30] J. Saldaña, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage, 2016.
clinicians’ decision-making: validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field
[31] M.F. Schober, J. Pasek, L. Guggenheim, C. Lampe, F.G. Conrad, Social media
studies, Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 15 (2) (2015) 160–170, https://doi.org/
analyses for social measurement, Public Opin. Q. 80 (1) (2016) 180–211.
10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001.
[32] Shark Meshing Program in NSW Waters, New South Wales Department of Primary
[9] L. Gibbs, L. Fetterplace, M. Rees, Q. Hanich, Effects and effectiveness of lethal
Industries, 2020. [Cited 13 November 2020]. 〈https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishin
shark hazard management: the shark meshing (bather protection) program, NSW,
g/threatened-species/what-current/key-threatening-processes/shark-meshing〉.
Australia, People Nat. 2 (1) (2020) 189–203, https://doi.org/10.1002/
[33] P. Simmons, M.I. Mehmet, Shark management strategy policy considerations:
pan3.10063.
community preferences, reasoning and speculations, Mar. Policy 96 (2018)
[10] L. Gibbs, A. Warren, Transforming shark hazard policy: learning from ocean-users
111–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.010.
and shark encounter in Western Australia, Mar. Policy 58 (2015) 116–124, https://
[34] D. Schneider, K. Harknett, What’s to like? Facebook as a tool for survey data
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.014.
collection, Sociol. Methods Res. (2019), 004912411988247, https://doi.org/
[11] G.M. Gray, C.A. Gray, Beach-user attitudes to shark bite mitigation strategies on
10.1177/0049124119882477.
coastal beaches; Sydney, Australia, Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 22 (3) (2017) 282–290
[35] D. Stokes, K. Apps, P.A. Butcher, B. Weiler, H. Luke, A.P. Colefax, Beach-user
[Cited 23 June 2020] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/
perceptions and attitudes towards drone surveillance as a shark-bite mitigation
10871209.2017.1295491.
tool, Mar. Policy 120 (2020), 104127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[12] J. Hainmueller, D. Hangartner, T. Yamamoto, Validating vignette and conjoint
marpol.2020.104127.
survey experiments against real-world behavior, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (8)
[36] A.D. Wallach, “Sometimes it happens”: how wildlife is thriving amongst India’s
(2015) 2395–2400, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416587112.
booming population, Curr. Conserv. 9 (2) (2015).
[13] R. Kansky, M. Kidd, A.T. Knight, A wildlife tolerance model and case study for
[37] J.G. West, Changing patterns of shark attacks in Australian waters, Mar. Freshw.
understanding human wildlife conflicts, Biol. Conserv. 201 (2016) 137–145,
Res. 62 (6) (2011) 744–754, https://doi.org/10.1071/MF10181.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.002.
[38] V.J. Kontsiotis, G. Vadikolios, V. Liordos, Acceptability and consensus for the
[14] R. Kansky, A.T. Knight, Key factors driving attitudes towards large mammals in
management of game and non-game crop raiders, Wildlife Research 47 (4) (2020)
conflict with humans, Biol. Conserv. 179 (2014) 93–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/
296–308. https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/pdf/WR19083.
j.biocon.2014.09.008.

10