Abstract
Human-wildlife conflicts are a growing phenomenon globally as human populations expand and wildlife interactions become more commonplace. While these conflicts have been well-defined in terrestrial systems, marine forms are less well-understood. As concerns grow for the future of many shark species it is becoming clear that a key to conservation success lies in changing human behaviors in relation to sharks. However, human-shark conflicts are multidimensional, each with different ecological, social and economic implications. Sharks have functional roles as occasional predators of humans and competitors with humans for fish stocks. In addition, and unlike most terrestrial predators, sharks are also important prey species for humans, being a source of animal protein and other products taken in fisheries. These functional roles are complex and often inter-dependent which can lead to multiple kinds of conflict. Shark management for conservation and human safety is also leading to conflict between different groups of people with different values and beliefs, demonstrating that human wildlife conflict can be a proxy for human-human conflict in the marine domain. Sharks are iconic species in society, being both feared and revered. As such human beliefs, attitudes and perceptions play key roles that underpin much human-shark conflict and future work to understanding these will contribute significantly to solutions that reduce conflict and hence improve conservation outcomes.
Highlights
Human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) produce some of the most pervasive and intractable problems for the conservation of species in both terrestrial and marine domains (Dickman, 2010; Madden and McQuinn, 2015; Carter and Linnell, 2016)
There is growing recognition that human-wildlife conflict can be a proxy for human-human conflict that cannot be solved through minimizing human-wildlife interactions alone (Dickman, 2010)
These concerns for human safety are often in conflict with existing conservation efforts. Frameworks such as conservation conflict transformation have been proposed to help achieve better conservation outcomes where there is deep-seated value-base conflict (Madden and McQuinn, 2015). This distinguishes between the surface-level dispute, often the focus of conservationist thinking
Summary
Human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) produce some of the most pervasive and intractable problems for the conservation of species in both terrestrial and marine domains (Dickman, 2010; Madden and McQuinn, 2015; Carter and Linnell, 2016). The portrayal of sharks in diving publications has changed from one of feared man-eater to important ocean inhabitant (Whatmough et al, 2011) This changing view of sharks based in different value positions, could be leading to a polarization of attitudes and increasing conflict between different sectors of society. Frameworks such as conservation conflict transformation have been proposed to help achieve better conservation outcomes where there is deep-seated value-base conflict (Madden and McQuinn, 2015) This distinguishes between the surface-level dispute, often the focus of conservationist thinking (e.g., conflict over culling sharks to reduce risk of shark bites). Values and beliefs are different in these communities it is likely that western approaches to conservation will be unsuccessful, and may be actively resisted causing additional unintended conflict (Robbins et al, 2006)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call