Novel risk assessment framework to compare shark-bite mitigation strategies

Abstract

Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are increasing globally and are some of the most pervasive problems for the conservation of terrestrial and marine species. Stakeholders often hold different values and concerns surrounding HWCs, and understanding these values and their relative importance among stakeholders allows for more effective decision-making. We developed a multi-objective decision analysis framework to compare and assist in determining preferred mitigation measures to reduce HWCs. We illustrate how this framework can be used to identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the risk of shark bites, which have been increasing worldwide and have led to ongoing controversy and debate between governments and other stakeholders. We combined expert assessment of shark-bite mitigation measures against socio-economic and environmental criteria, while accounting for subjective ranking of the importance of these performance criteria across stakeholders. Our flexible framework was tested to compare 15 mitigation measures for the Gold Coast region of Queensland, Australia, using 12 performance criteria. Results reiterated the societal shift towards non-lethal measures and highlighted which mitigation measures or performance criteria lacked information, helping to identify knowledge gaps and research needs. The flexibility of our framework makes it applicable to a broad range of contexts and HWCs and allows the incorporation of location-specific requirements and views that may vary between stakeholders. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.