Global Shark Attack Hotspots: Identifying Underlying Factors Behind Increased Unprovoked Shark Bite Incidence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308601225 Global shark attack hotspots: Identifying underlying factors behind increased unprovoked shark bite incidence Article in Ocean & Coastal Management · December 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.09.010 CITATIONS READS 0 347 2 authors: Blake Kristin Harahush Daryl Mcphee Blake Chapman Communication Bond University 8 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 392 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Daryl Mcphee on 26 September 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Ocean & Coastal Management 133 (2016) 72e84 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman Global shark attack hotspots: Identifying underlying factors behind increased unprovoked shark bite incidence * Blake K. Chapman , Daryl McPhee Faculty of Society and Design, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia article info abstract Article history: Unprovoked shark bite remains a rare, unlikely occurrence; however, shark bite incidence is increasing Received 22 October 2015 world-wide. In an effort to understand why shark bite incidence is increasing, we examine recent trends Received in revised form in unprovoked shark bite statistics and other media from the six global shark bite “hotspots”, the United 31 August 2016 States, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Reunion Island and the Bahamas, and review recent literature that Accepted 15 September 2016 identifies potential causative factors that may contribute to rising shark bite incidence. Increases in shark bite incidence are likely attributable to rises in human population, as well as other causative factors, including habitat destruction/modification, water quality, climate change and anomalous weather pat- Keywords: Unprovoked shark bite terns and the distribution/abundance of prey. Our analysis shows that increases are likely the result of a Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) set of conditions that disrupts the natural balance of an area at a local or regional level and increases the White shark (Carcharodon carcharias) probability of shark-human interaction. We also present recommendations for future management of Bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) shark-human interaction. Human-wildlife interaction © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction particular time. Traditional measures, such as shark nets and drum lines, which attempt to capture and kill large sharks, are highly Globally, the frequency of unprovoked shark bite has been controversial (Gibbs and Warren, 2014; Meeuwig and Ferreira, increasing (McPhee, 2014). While unprovoked shark bite over the 2014). Assessment of the efficacy of these programs has demon- last 30 years has been recorded from 56 countries and territories, strated in terms of actual reduction in the probability of an inter- the majority (84%) have occurred in six: the United States, South action that they may be equivocal or ineffective (Wetherbee et al., Africa, Australia, Brazil, the Bahamas and Reunion Island (McPhee, 1994), and the perception among the public of their level of effi- 2014). While the probability of unprovoked shark bite is low, and cacy is not high (Crossley et al., 2014). Further, as well as targeting most shark bites result in very minor injuries only (Woolgar and species such as the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the Cliff, 2001), the results can be traumatic or fatal and the vivid na- tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier), which are of conservation concern, ture of a shark bite ensures a high degree of media reporting and the methods used result in high levels of by-catch, including pro- public concern (Neff, 2012). The public perceives the probability of tected or threatened species (Brazier et al., 2012; Dudley, 1997; an unprovoked shark bite as much greater than it actually is, and a Dudley and Cliff, 2010; Dudley and Simpendorfer, 2006; Gribble greater fatality risk than drowning, despite evidence to the contrary et al., 1998; Krogh and Reid, 1996; Paterson, 1990), and could (Caldicott et al., 2001; Crossley et al., 2014; McPhee, 2014; Myrick have detrimental effects to entire populations (Weltz et al., 2013). and Evans, 2014). Additionally, the shift in human perception from the need to be In order to address public concern, management agencies may protected from sharks to the need to protect sharks from humans implement measures that attempt to reduce the risk posed, placate leads to the necessity to formulate ecologically-responsible ap- the public, or provide information aimed at allowing water users to proaches to mitigating the risk (Gibbs and Warren, 2014; Meeuwig make more informed decisions about utilising a particular area at a and Ferreira, 2014; Simpfendorfer et al., 2011). Unprovoked shark bite is not a homogenous phenomenon, complicating assessment of the event. Bites may occur over a range Abbreviations: ISAF, International Shark Attack File; NSW, New South Wales; of different habitats (e.g. coral reefs, surf beaches, rivers), and the SST, Sea surface temperature; US, United States; WA, Western Australia. various species implicated in bites differ substantially in biology * Corresponding author. and ecology. However, the three main species of concern to humans E-mail address: [email protected] (B.K. Chapman). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.09.010 0964-5691/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. B.K. Chapman, D. McPhee / Ocean & Coastal Management 133 (2016) 72e84 73 are white sharks, bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas), and tiger sharks the analyses and interpretations presented herein. (McPhee, 2014). Furthermore, the pattern of human usage of The data extracted from the ISAF database included information coastal waters also differs both spatially and temporally, and on the date and locality of shark bite (year, date, time, country, unprovoked shark bites occur during a range of human water-based state/territory, county/beach), the source of information, and as activities (McPhee, 2014). much information as possible on the activity performed at the time Identifying that the frequency of unprovoked shark bite has of the bite, the victim (name, sex, age, injury sustained) and detail been increasing globally is important, but given its heterogeneous of the shark. Prior to analysis, all names and individual identifiers nature, further understanding requires analysis of trends at were removed from ISAF data sets used in this study to anonymise regional levels, and a focus on the drivers of any trends at this level. and de-identify the records. Our dataset was filtered through the There are a number of factors that may contribute to the global ISAF data download tool and by scanning the activity and injury trend of increasing unprovoked shark bite. Paramount is simply details of each file to include only cases that were confirmed and that a growing human population means that more people are unprovoked. Our analysis excludes provoked bites, bites to motor- likely to be in the water, and hence the probability of an unpro- ised or non-motorised water crafts or equipment where no physical voked shark bite is increased. However, McPhee (2014) identified contact between the shark and a human occurred, and cases where that, globally, this factor alone was insufficient to explain the the victim was dead prior to shark interaction. The bites must have observed trends, and Amin et al. (2012) determined that unpro- occurred in the sharks' natural environment and without prior voked bites were not proportional to beach attendance in Florida. provocation by a human (e.g. encouraging a shark through feeding Other contributing factors may include changes in the abundance or aggravating the shark by purposefully touching or attempting to of prey (e.g. seals and whales), which may increase the spatial touch it). Cases where the presence or accountability of a shark overlap between relevant shark species and water users; an in- towards human injury or death were not definitive are excluded. crease in the population of relevant shark species; and anthropo- Additional information on shark bite data collection and current genic factors, such as coastal development, which may change the shark bite data (including maps showing where bites have pattern of habitat use of relevant shark species (McPhee, 2014). occurred) can be found on the ISAF website (https://www.flmnh. These potential contributing factors are not mutually exclusive. ufl.edu/fish/isaf/home/). In this paper we analyse International Shark Attack File (ISAF) Shark bite data were broken down by country, state/territory records from the global “hotspots” of unprovoked shark bite be- and county, and yearly incidence was qualified and plotted. Linear tween the years 1982 to 2013. We aim to determine the trends in regression trendlines were fitted to the data to determine change in the frequency of unprovoked shark bite at these six hotspots and frequency (rate of change). Regional data were also broken down by offer explanations of observed trends. Identifying potential factors month and activity. Within the manuscript, peak incidence years that may be responsible for observed trends can assist in under- are identified by calendar year, followed by the number