Social dimensions of shark–human interactions in a large remote marine protected area
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The impact of shifting marine conservation policy, including marine protected area (MPA) designation, in shaping interactions between humans and imperilled species, such as sharks, remains understudied, despite its importance in determining the success of these interventions. We investigated perceptions of shark–human interactions (SHI) among the community in a remote, large‐scale MPA (Ascension Island) where two recent shark attacks and perceived general increases in interactions (mostly with Galapagos and silky sharks), including depredation in recreational fisheries, have occurred. From 2023 to 2024, informal semistructured interviews ( n = 34) were conducted with island residents and analysed using two theory‐driven thematic frameworks to understand the level and drivers of conflict. We showed considerable social impact of SHI, including reduced human well‐being and substantial lifestyle changes, with both depredation and human attacks driving dispute‐level conflict. Strong social and familial connections on island resulted in narratives around attacks persisting and trauma resulting from attacks drove heightened perceived risk. Underlying conflict was further exacerbated by the perceived recurrent and unpredictable nature of negative SHI compounded with the interactions being perceived as abnormal with limited information on socio‐ecological drivers. Some felt excessive chumming by historic recreational fisheries, mostly engaged in by non‐residents, had also involuntarily exposed them to heightened risk by increasing SHI. There was also no consensus of what shark species were behind the increased interactions. Management resolutions were perceived as minimal but were not widely viewed as negative. However, divergent views on the use of lethal control and the need for conservation measures, such as banning shark exploitation, were evident. A key theme emerged around the need for wider community participation in the research and management processes. Policy implications . Our results highlight the critical importance of demystifying marine species, particularly in terms of understanding socio‐ecological drivers of human–wildlife interactions, to combat escalation into human–wildlife conflict. This is particularly important to maintain support for large‐scale MPAs and species‐specific conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».