Elsevier

Marine Policy

Volume 120, October 2020, 104127
Marine Policy

Beach-user perceptions and attitudes towards drone surveillance as a shark-bite mitigation tool

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104127Get rights and content

Highlights

  • An online survey was conducted to assess knowledge of, and support for, drones.

  • Drones as a shark-bite mitigation tool were strongly supported (>85%).

  • Drone surveillance was the most popular ‘preferred’ approach for shark mitigation.

  • Respondents view drones as more cost-effective and less harmful to sharks.

  • Surfers were less likely to choose a beach where drones were in use.

Abstract

Management of human-wildlife conflict is often challenging and complex, particularly when the conflict involves sharks. New technologies are being trialled in New South Wales, on Australia's east coast, to accommodate the community demand for increased beach-user protection that does not harm marine wildlife. Drones (or unmanned aerial vehicles), are one of a suite of potential tools that can address both these demands. We released an online survey to assess beach-user perceptions and attitudes toward drones on NSW beaches as a shark surveillance tool. From 439 respondents, we found the use of drones on coastal beaches was accepted by the majority of people surveyed (88%) due to perceptions of reduced impact on sharks, and the relatively low cost. Drone surveillance was also the preferred approach for bather protection overall. Arguably the most vulnerable beach-user group for a shark bite incident, surfers, claimed the highest level of awareness of the use of drones for shark surveillance, but also indicated lower confidence in their utility compared to other groups. The study demonstrates an overall social licence regarding the use of drones for shark surveillance purposes, with the levels of support likely to increase with further public education efforts and improvements to the efficacy of drone-based surveillance.

Introduction

There is an increasing urgency for managing human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in ways that limit the deleterious impacts of human activity on the welfare of terrestrial and marine wildlife, particularly as human populations continue to encroach on natural habitats [1,2]. HWC has historically been managed by lethal control, as this was often considered the most cost-efficient and effective means of reducing risk to people [[3], [4], [5]]. More recently, however, such forms of management have been criticised for conflicting with animal conservation values, particularly where large animal species are already considered vulnerable to population decline [2,6]. Furthermore, despite an innate human fear of large predatory animals, community attitudes have largely shifted to favour management approaches to HWC that support conservation [5,7].

That said, gaining a ‘social licence’ to operate is a critical consideration for the introduction and efficacy of new management approaches to HWC, including new technologies [8]. In the context of managing HWC, social licence refers to community support and ultimately acceptance of new ways of managing HWC, which relies on positive public perceptions. As such, an understanding of community perceptions and attitudes is crucial for the smooth implementation of any management strategy aimed at minimising negative impacts, both socially and environmentally. Without this understanding, management approaches designed to reduce conflict, including the use of non-lethal actions to mitigate HWC, can fall short of gaining widespread community support [5,9]. Failure to gain a social licence to implement HWC management can leave managers frustrated and public fears unresolved [9,10].

Unprovoked shark bites (also framed as ‘attacks’) along coastal beaches are a HWC that occurs globally, but is most often reported in Australia, South Africa, North America, Brazil and Reunion Island [11,12]. Although shark bite incidents are statistically rare [13], these events are highly traumatic for those directly involved, and they can be traumatic for those indirectly connected (i.e. not present during the incident) [14]. With the innate and media-fuelled underlying fears towards sharks, public risk perceptions surrounding these incidents can be significantly skewed, which can compound pressure for management action [15,16]. In other words, there is a disproportionately high level of concern that is likely the result of the vivid nature of shark bites, sensationalist media reporting [17], and perhaps the recent uptake of shark tracking apps [15]. While an unwanted human-shark interaction remains unlikely, this high level of fear of sharks must be considered when designing management responses [7], and thus governments invest significant resources into this space [18,19].

As with other HWC examples (e.g. Refs. [4,20]), risk mitigation for human-shark interactions has historically taken the form of lethal control, such as drumlines and mesh nets [21,22]. Although cull-based strategies may potentially address the perceived threat of shark bite incidents to public safety [23], they fail to address the loss of conservation values as well as changing community attitudes surrounding ecological consequences [7,24,25]. Therefore, there is a need to reduce reliance on lethal methods of shark-bite mitigation offered by traditional shark control programs, and instead implement strategies that support animal conservation and meet community expectations [26,27]. However, the success of alternative shark-bite mitigation strategies (that do not impact marine life) must take beach safety requirements into account as well as public perceptions about the acceptability and efficacy of these strategies [15,23,28].

The use of drones (also known as unmanned aerial vehicles or remotely piloted aircraft systems) is rapidly increasing in popularity for a range of ‘eco-services’, including for anti-poaching [29], quantifying habitat change [30,31], and terrestrial and marine animal population surveys [[32], [33], [34]]. Additionally, because drones are more efficient for detecting coastal marine fauna over localised spatial scales than traditional piloted aircraft (plane or helicopter) [[35], [36], [37]], their use as a shark surveillance tool is rapidly generating interest [38,39]. However, whilst drones resemble a new and ‘exciting’ technology, they can have associated negative connotations (such as military and spying) [40,41]. As such, for drones to gain perceived legitimacy, which is a basic requirement for achieving a ‘social licence’ to operate, perceived positive impacts need to outweigh perceived negative impacts. Knowledge and understanding of a technology can also play an important role in perceived legitimacy, and trust in the technology as well as those managing it, has been identified as critical for gaining and maintaining a social licence to operate [42,43]. The contexts in which the technology is used, including potential modes of impact and benefit, also need to be considered [8]. Moreover, public perceptions and associated levels of acceptance can vary widely across various demographics as well as an individual's level of exposure to, and previous history with, drones [44,45]. Ultimately, for drones to be considered as a viable shark surveillance option, it is vital that public perceptions and attitudes around their use and their efficacy, are thoroughly understood.

During the years 2015–2016 there was an unprecedented spike in human-shark incidents along the east coast of Australia, with 14 reported interactions, eight of which were on the north coast of New South Wales (NSW) [16]. The general public, governing bodies and scientists debated how to manage human safety concerns and questioned why the increase in incidents may have occurred [16,[46], [47], [48], [49]]. In October 2015, the NSW Government announced a $16 million ‘Shark Management Strategy’ that included funding for (i) surveillance, detections and deterrents, (ii) science and research, and (iii) education and community awareness [50]. While the Shark Management Strategy trialled and evaluated the use of ‘invasive’ shark-bite mitigation measures that drew a significant amount of negative public attention, such as SMART drumlines [51,52], shark nets [53] and personal deterrents/protection [54,55], many NSW beach users were demanding less invasive, non-lethal measures [25].

The Shark Management Strategy was also trialling non-invasive measures for bather protection, such as community education and awareness, helicopters, shark barriers and in particular, drones for shark surveillance [37,38,56]. Drones are still considered a new technology, and therefore, public acceptance of this type of technology and its use on beaches as a mitigation measure, remains unclear. This research examined public perceptions and attitudes/preferences surrounding the use of drones as a primary shark surveillance strategy to provide beach safety. The results of this survey can help inform decision-making and management practice around the use of drones for mitigating shark risk on Australian beaches, and around the globe.

Section snippets

Study sample and research instrument

A questionnaire (Table A1, Appendix A) was designed to assess awareness, perceptions and attitudes/preferences towards the use of drones as a beach safety/shark surveillance measure. It was administered online from April to November 2019. The study was targeted primarily at the NSW beach-going public and thus advertised via local newspapers, radio and TV, Facebook, and the NSW SharkSmart webpage (https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au). Willing participants over the age of 18 were eligible to

Demographics and beach use

Respondents were predominantly male (55%), 30 − 49 years old (46%), ranging in age from 18 to over 65. The majority of the sample were from NSW (91%), with the most frequently mentioned postcodes being those from around the communities of Ballina and Lennox Head (n = 57). The sample also included respondents from other jurisdictions covering Queensland (n = 34), South Australia (n = 1) and Western Australia (n = 1). There were seven overseas respondents (one from the USA and Norway, two from

Discussion

This study demonstrates a high level of public acceptance for the use of drones as a tool for reducing human-shark interactions at coastal beaches in NSW, Australia. Similar to findings by Simmons and Mehmet [7], overall, respondents surveyed in this study perceived drone monitoring to be non-invasive, low cost, and a more effective alternative to traditional aerial surveys. In the broader human-wildlife conflict literature, it is suggested that management interventions should aim to fulfil

Conclusion

Human-wildlife conflict is an ongoing, ever present juggling act where considerations for human welfare, animal welfare and the economic implications must all be adequately addressed. Management of HWC elsewhere is often highly problematic because predatory animals are moving across (often newly) human inhabited landscapes. The impacts can be enormous with the loss of livelihood, loss of lives and loss of infrastructure. The ‘human-shark’ conflict is clearly a highly emotive one. It is similar

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Debra Stokes: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Kirin Apps: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Paul A. Butcher: Methodology, Validation, Writing - review & editing, Conceptualization. Betty Weiler: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Hanabeth Luke: Writing - review & editing. Andrew P. Colefax: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - review & editing.

Acknowledgements

Southern Cross University provided ‘Human Ethics’ (ACEC Ref. ECN-19-054) approval. Primary support for the authors was provided through Southern Cross University and the Shark Management Strategy by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), Australia. This project would not have been possible without the respondents who completed the survey.

References (72)

  • A.P. Colefax et al.

    Reliability of marine faunal detections in drone-based monitoring

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2019)
  • J. Prno

    An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to operate in the mining industry

    Resour. Pol.

    (2013)
  • H. Luke

    Social resistance to coal seam gas development in the Northern Rivers region of Eastern Australia: proposing a diamond model of social license to operate

    Land Use Pol.

    (2017)
  • R.L. Finn et al.

    Privacy, data protection and ethics for civil drone practice: a survey of industry, regulators and civil society organisations

    Comput. Law Secur. Rep.

    (2016)
  • R.J. Lennox et al.

    Evaluating the efficacy of predator removal in a conflict-prone world

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2018)
  • D. Guyomard et al.

    An innovative fishing gear to enhance the release of non-target species in coastal shark-control programs: the SMART (shark management alert in real-time) drumline

    Fish. Res.

    (2019)
  • C. McCagh et al.

    Killing sharks: the media's role in public and political response to fatal human-shark interactions

    Mar. Pol.

    (2015)
  • J.R. O'Bryhim et al.

    Increased knowledge about sharks increases public concern about their conservation

    Mar. Pol.

    (2015)
  • J.S. Brashares et al.

    Conservation policy: wildlife decline and social conflict

    Science

    (2014)
  • J.H. Daskin et al.

    Warfare and wildlife declines in Africa's protected areas

    Nature

    (2018)
  • M. Gusset et al.

    Human–wildlife conflict in northern Botswana: livestock predation by Endangered African wild dog Lycaon pictus and other carnivores

    Oryx

    (2009)
  • A. Fernandez-Gil et al.

    Conflict misleads large carnivore management and conservation: Brown bears and wolves in Spain

    PloS One

    (2016)
  • G. Ceballos et al.

    Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

    (2017)
  • A.J. Dickman

    Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict

    Anim. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • S. Lucrezi et al.

    A test of causative and moderator effects in human perceptions of sharks, their control and framing

    Mar. Pol.

    (2019)
  • S. Midway et al.

    Trends in global shark attacks

    PloS One

    (2019)
  • J. Taylor et al.

    Direct and indirect psychological impacts of shark-bite events

    Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatr.

    (2019)
  • R. Crossley et al.

    Public perception and understanding of shark attack mitigation measures in Australia

    Hum. Dimens. Wildl.

    (2014)
  • N. Hardiman et al.

    How sharks and shark–human interactions are reported in major Australian newspapers

    Sustainability

    (2020)
  • D. McPhee

    Unprovoked shark bites: are they becoming more prevalent?

    Coast. Manag.

    (2014)
  • J.J. Meeuwig et al.

    Moving beyond lethal programs for shark hazard mitigation

    Anim. Conserv.

    (2014)
  • D.D. Reid et al.

    Decadal trends in shark catches and effort from the New South Wales, Australia, shark meshing program 1950 - 2010

    Mar. Freshw. Res.

    (2011)
  • W.D. Sumpton et al.

    Gear selectivity of large-mesh nets and drumlines used to catch sharks in the Queensland Shark Control Program

    Afr. J. Mar. Sci.

    (2011)
  • G.M.E. Gray et al.

    Beach-user attitudes to shark bite mitigation strategies on coastal beaches; Sydney, Australia

    Hum. Dimens. Wildl.

    (2017)
  • C. Pepin-Neff et al.

    Shark bites and shark conservation: an analysis of human attitudes following shark bite incidents in two locations in Australia

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2017)
  • G. Roff et al.

    Decline of coastal apex shark populations over the past half century

    Comm. Biol.

    (2018)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text