A study of the influences on preferences, tolerance, and thresholds of acceptability for shark management options in NSW

Peter Denyer-Simmons; Michael Mehmet; Kane Callaghan; Belinda Curley; Kim Wolfenden

A study of the influences on preferences, tolerance, and thresholds of acceptability for shark management options in NSW

Peter Denyer-Simmons, Michael Mehmet, Kane Callaghan, Belinda Curley, Kim Wolfenden

Research output: Book/Report › Commissioned report (non-public)

Abstract

Across the three phases of the study the project found:
• Very strong support for authorities helping people to accept and take responsibility for their safety – beach signage, education, research and advice that improves understanding of how to avoid unnecessary risk.
• Very high support for non-invasive strategies; consistently low support for invasive strategies.
• Least support for strategies that indiscriminately kill sharks and other marine life. People were in favour of strategies that offer protection to humans but did not negatively impact sharks.
• Sharks were rarely demonised as ‘killers’; most often they were characterised as integral to marine ecosystems. ‘The ocean is their home’ was very often stated.
• A strong dislike of ‘knee-jerk’ policymaking in response to isolated incidents and as political opportunism – Thoughtfully considered policy was well regarded, reactive management was not well received.

Original language	English
Place of Publication	CSU Bathurst
Publisher	Institute of Land Water and Society
Commissioning body	NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI)
Number of pages	115
ISBN (Electronic)	9781864673616
ISBN (Print)	9781864673616
Publication status	Published - Jan 2020

Publication series

Name	ILWS Report
No.	130

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Cite this

@book{b611606732274b0dae1db617a42bd9ac,

title = "A study of the influences on preferences, tolerance, and thresholds of acceptability for shark management options in NSW",

abstract = "Across the three phases of the study the project found:• Very strong support for authorities helping people to accept and take responsibility for their safety – beach signage, education, research and advice that improves understanding of how to avoid unnecessary risk. • Very high support for non-invasive strategies; consistently low support for invasive strategies.• Least support for strategies that indiscriminately kill sharks and other marine life. People were in favour of strategies that offer protection to humans but did not negatively impact sharks.• Sharks were rarely demonised as {\textquoteleft}killers{\textquoteright}; most often they were characterised as integral to marine ecosystems. {\textquoteleft}The ocean is their home{\textquoteright} was very often stated.• A strong dislike of {\textquoteleft}knee-jerk{\textquoteright} policymaking in response to isolated incidents and as political opportunism – Thoughtfully considered policy was well regarded, reactive management was not well received.",

keywords = "shark management, bayesian networks, thresholds, vignettes, scenario study, social media analysis, focus groups",

author = "Peter Denyer-Simmons and Michael Mehmet and Kane Callaghan and Belinda Curley and Kim Wolfenden",

year = "2020",

month = jan,

language = "English",

isbn = "9781864673616",

series = "ILWS Report",

publisher = "Institute of Land Water and Society",

number = "130",

address = "Australia",

}

TY - BOOK

T1 - A study of the influences on preferences, tolerance, and thresholds of acceptability for shark management options in NSW

AU - Denyer-Simmons, Peter

AU - Mehmet, Michael

AU - Callaghan, Kane

AU - Curley, Belinda

AU - Wolfenden, Kim

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - Across the three phases of the study the project found:• Very strong support for authorities helping people to accept and take responsibility for their safety – beach signage, education, research and advice that improves understanding of how to avoid unnecessary risk. • Very high support for non-invasive strategies; consistently low support for invasive strategies.• Least support for strategies that indiscriminately kill sharks and other marine life. People were in favour of strategies that offer protection to humans but did not negatively impact sharks.• Sharks were rarely demonised as ‘killers’; most often they were characterised as integral to marine ecosystems. ‘The ocean is their home’ was very often stated.• A strong dislike of ‘knee-jerk’ policymaking in response to isolated incidents and as political opportunism – Thoughtfully considered policy was well regarded, reactive management was not well received.

AB - Across the three phases of the study the project found:• Very strong support for authorities helping people to accept and take responsibility for their safety – beach signage, education, research and advice that improves understanding of how to avoid unnecessary risk. • Very high support for non-invasive strategies; consistently low support for invasive strategies.• Least support for strategies that indiscriminately kill sharks and other marine life. People were in favour of strategies that offer protection to humans but did not negatively impact sharks.• Sharks were rarely demonised as ‘killers’; most often they were characterised as integral to marine ecosystems. ‘The ocean is their home’ was very often stated.• A strong dislike of ‘knee-jerk’ policymaking in response to isolated incidents and as political opportunism – Thoughtfully considered policy was well regarded, reactive management was not well received.

KW - shark management, bayesian networks, thresholds, vignettes, scenario study, social media analysis, focus groups

M3 - Commissioned report (non-public)

SN - 9781864673616

T3 - ILWS Report

BT - A study of the influences on preferences, tolerance, and thresholds of acceptability for shark management options in NSW

PB - Institute of Land Water and Society

CY - CSU Bathurst

ER -

A study of the influences on preferences, tolerance, and thresholds of acceptability for shark management options in NSW

Abstract

Publication series

UN SDGs

Fingerprint

Cite this