Beach-user perceptions and attitudes towards drone surveillance as a shark-bite mitigation tool
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)
- et al.
Public acceptance of management methods under different human-wildlife conflict scenarios
Sci. Total Environ.
(2017) - et al.
Shark management strategy policy considerations: community preferences, reasoning and speculations
Mar. Pol.
(2018) - et al.
Unconventional gas development in Australia: a critical review of its social license
Extract. Ind. Soc.
(2018) - et al.
Targeting human fear of large carnivores — many ideas but few known effects
Biol. Conserv.
(2016) - et al.
Global shark attack hotspots: identifying underlying factors behind increased unprovoked shark bite incidence
Ocean Coast Manag.
(2016) - et al.
Evaluating the media's reporting of public and political responses to human-shark interactions in N.S.W, Australia
Mar. Pol.
(2018) - et al.
Human wildlife conflict involving large carnivores in Qilianshan, China and the minimal paw-print of snow leopards
Biol. Conserv.
(2015) - et al.
Public perceptions of sharks: gathering support for shark conservation
Mar. Pol.
(2014) - et al.
Reducing fear to influence policy preferences: an experiment with sharks and beach safety policy options
Mar. Pol.
(2018) - et al.
Transforming shark hazard policy: learning from ocean-users and shark encounter in Western Australia
Mar. Pol.
(2015)