MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415029494 · doi:10.1002/pan3.70131

Social dimensions of shark–human interactions in a large remote marine protected area

2025· article· en· W4415029494 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Collins, Sam B. Weber, Lucy Clarke, Matthew Gollock, Nigel E. Hussey, Daniel Simpson, Tiffany Simpson, David J. Curnick

Bibliographic record

VenuePeople and Nature · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersDarwin Initiative
KeywordsRecreationPerceptionThematic analysisMarine protected areaProtected areaNarrativeRisk perceptionRecreational use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeople and NatureSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207