Predicting potential future reduction in shark bites on people

Abstract

Despite the low chance of a person being bitten by a shark, there are serious associated costs. Electronic deterrents are currently the only types of personal deterrent with empirical evidence of a substantial reduction in the probability of being bitten by a shark. We aimed to predict the number of people who could potentially avoid being bitten by sharks in Australia if they wear personal electronic deterrents. We used the Australian Shark Attack File from 1900 to 2020 to develop sinusoidal time-series models of per capita incidents, and then stochastically projected these to 2066. We predicted that up to 1063 people (range: 185–2118) could potentially avoid being bitten across Australia by 2066 if all people used the devices. Avoiding death and injury of people over the next half-century is of course highly desirable, especially when considering the additional costs associated with the loss of recreational, commercial and tourism revenue potentially in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars following clusters of shark-bite events.

Dynamic use of coastal areas by bull sharks and the conciliation of conservation and management of negative human–wildlife interactions

“…However, should such a recommendation not be implemented because of a lack of acceptance by the local population (restrictions of human access to the sea tend to trigger strong social protests in Reunion Island), a minimum measure would be the massive deployment of exclusion barriers at specific surfing spots in parts of the island during this period. Furthermore, public consultation and information sharing in combination with other available mitigation tools such as surveillance programmes or personal protection devices, two tools that are now commonly employed in Reunion Island, are essential as they are likely to reduce the risk (Bradshaw et al, 2021). The need for consideration of dynamic spatial management measures has recently been suggested (Shabtay et al, 2020).…”

A “Wicked Problem” Reconciling Human-Shark Conflict, Shark Bite Mitigation, and Threatened Species

“…Many human-wildlife conflicts involve humans venturing into wildlife habitat, or exploiting areas in new ways, whether becoming exposed to sharks in the sea or large dangerous wildlife on land. In the case of shark bite risk, while management agencies are tasked with developing public safety strategies the public can also contribute to lowering their own risk, for example, by wearing personal electronic deterrents (Bradshaw et al, 2021). Balancing human risk with increasingly disturbed environments and ever diminishing populations of wildlife (Bar-On et al, 2018) requires robust approaches.…”

The Australian Shark-Incident Database for quantifying temporal and spatial patterns of shark-human conflict

“…We acknowledge the limitations associated with this database, such as differences in reporting over time. For example, incidents might be reported more in recent decades due to technological advances making reporting more accessible or media publicising these events more widely 18 . There might also be reporting biases, for example, victims could be more likely to report a bite by a large, potentially dangerous shark (e.g., white, tiger, or bull shark) rather than a smaller, less-dangerous shark species (e.g., wobbegong shark).…”

“…For example, Bradshaw et al . 18 used the database combined with known deterrent effectiveness to predict the potential future reduction in shark bites on people in Australia. The data can also enable policy makers and consumers to make informed decisions when selecting and implementing the most appropriate shark-bite mitigation measures for the intended outcome 19 .…”