When a Shark Is More Than a Shark: A Sociopolitical Problem-Solving Approach to Fisher-Shark Interactions
Mia A. Iwane
Kirsten M. Leong
Mehana Vaughan
Kirsten L. L. Oleson- 1Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Honolulu, HI, United States
- 2Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, HI, United States
- 3Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, HI, United States
Fisheries are often conceptualized through a biophysical lens resulting in management approaches that fail to account for stakeholder conflicts and sociopolitical inequities. Using a fisher engagement approach, this case study examines the sociopolitical dimensions of fisher-shark interactions in pursuit of more complete problem definitions and effective solutions. Through interviews with Hawai‘i small boat fishers and observations of a community-based shark-tagging project, we examined fisher perspective, socioeconomic landscapes, stakeholder relationships, and power dynamics. We interpreted these data using an adapted framework that mobilizes concepts from conflict theory and problem definition. We discovered that economic cost, sharks as fishing competitors, and factors of fishers' on-the-water decisions define the fisher-shark interaction problem at the dispute level. Deeper conflicts include fishers' poor perceptions of management legitimacy, degraded relationships with researchers and managers, threatened fisher identities, and poor enforcement capacity. Together, dispute and deeper conflicts limit the effectiveness of singular approaches (e.g., regulation) to mitigate fisher-shark interactions and necessitate multi-pronged solutions with substance-, process-, and relationships-based components. This case study documented one such multi-pronged strategy employing fisher-researcher knowledge exchange, collaborative research, and means of more transparent communication. This strategy has the potential to affect both dispute- and deeper-level outcomes by advancing collective understanding of sharks and shark-handling tools, fisher behavior, and reducing shark mortality. Thus, a sociopolitical approach to problem-solving may yield greater collective benefits to fisheries stakeholders and sharks, with broader implications for the systemic management of complex human and biophysical ecosystem components.
Introduction
Natural resource management often employs partial problem framings that favor biophysical, “scientifically objective” information (Young N. et al., 2016; Stephenson et al., 2017). Given stakeholders' diverse perceptions of the problem (Bardwell, 1991; Adams et al., 2003; Ebbin, 2011), deciding whose narratives to include makes the problem definition process inherently political (Weiss, 1989). Moreover, problem framings are often inattentive to the sociopolitical, conflict-laden landscapes within which natural resource management problems manifest and evolve (Nie, 2001). Failed problem-solving endeavors ignoring social, cultural, and political contexts have been documented in conflict resolution (Ginges et al., 2007; May, 2013) and conservation management (Dickman, 2010; Clark and Slocombe, 2011). Even as socioeconomic and biophysical data are integrated to improve management outcomes (Stephenson et al., 2017), using simplified models for decision-making can lead to overly simple solutions (Scott, 1998). It is essential in problem-solving endeavors to embrace the full range of systems-level complexity of natural resource management problems (Ostrom, 2007; Palsson et al., 2013; Aswani et al., 2018).
Sociopolitical analyses have begun to shed light on the systemic complexity of human-wildlife conflict and management. For example, an emerging body of literature describes terrestrial management efforts aimed at biological and tangible problems of human-wildlife interaction that instead exacerbated conflicts. In some cases, management regimes generated symbolic meanings for large terrestrial wildlife among stakeholders who then viewed wildlife as negative representations of state governance (Nie, 2001; Naughton-Treves and Treves, 2005) or the interests of distant, privileged environmental groups (Skogen et al., 2008). Where these symbolic meanings around human-wildlife conflict are ignored, animosity toward wildlife may persist even after negative human-wildlife interactions have been resolved (Dickman, 2010). Other cases point to implementation breakdowns due to failure to account for power dynamics between managers and stakeholders (Webber et al., 2007; Clark and Slocombe, 2011). Strategies that instead engage stakeholders to take stock of and improve relationships among stakeholders and between humans and wildlife may be better positioned to resolve human-wildlife conflict (Marchini et al., 2019). Madden and McQuinn (2014) present two success stories in human-wildlife conflict management where problem-solving processes account for politics and stakeholder relationships. Together, these studies caution against narrow problem framings of human-wildlife conflict and highlight the benefit of considering sociopolitical contexts and engaging stakeholders as we strive toward human-wildlife coexistence.
Sharks (subclass: Elasmobranchii; superorder Selachii) present an opportunity to diversify the human-wildlife conflict literature. Research around human-shark interaction has focused primarily on public (Friedrich et al., 2014; Garla et al., 2015; O'Bryhim and Parsons, 2015; Acuña-Marrero et al., 2018) and fisher (McClellan Press et al., 2016; Drymon and Scyphers, 2017; Shiffman et al., 2017; French et al., 2019) attitudes toward shark conservation, fisheries interaction patterns and their economic and ecological implications (Stevens et al., 2000; Glaus et al., 2019; Mason et al., 2019), and efforts to mitigate shark depredation and bycatch (Carruthers and Neis, 2011; Gilman et al., 2015; Oliver et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2018). Researchers have also focused on characterizing the global shark seafood trade (Clarke et al., 2006; Shea and To, 2017), shifting livelihoods of shark fishers (Jaiteh et al., 2017), and emerging opportunities and challenges in shark tourism (Techera, 2012; Vianna et al., 2012). This body of work exemplifies the diverse positions from which researchers and managers understand sharks and people (Molony and Thomson, 2020) including public safety, shark conservation, and fisheries impacts. Collins et al. (2020) explore the more intricate relationships between shark management measures' efficacy and diverse fisher economies, adaptive capacities, social norms, and perceptions of management. However, a need for research and policy mechanisms to account for behavioral (Fulton et al., 2011) and socioeconomic factors affecting the feasibility of shark management and bycatch mitigation measures persists (Campbell and Cornwell, 2008; Booth et al., 2019). The sociopolitical lens, with its attention to stakeholder relationships, diverse problem definitions, histories, and power, has received limited attention in human-shark conflict and shark management to date.
This research contributes to the existing body of literature by delivering a localized sociopolitical analysis of fisher-shark interactions. In this West Hawai‘i case study we engaged small boat fishers to expand upon biophysical, conservation-driven problem framings around fisher-shark interactions and account for stakeholder conflicts and power dynamics. An adapted theoretical framework connects concepts of problem definition and layered conflict, providing structure to examine complex problems and comment on the equity and effectiveness of potential solutions. Coupled with its stakeholder interview and observation methods, this research examines the relevance of stakeholder conflict, power, history, and identity to fisher-shark interactions and the importance of process and relationships in reconciling them.
We explore problem-solving in fisheries through two overarching research questions: (1) What layered conflicts are embedded in fishers' definitions of the fisher-shark interaction “problem”? and (2) How might solutions address both dispute and deeper conflicts for the benefit of stakeholders and sharks?
Methods
Theoretical Framework
This study adapts Madden and McQuinn (2014) conflict framework to examine problem-solving in fisheries. Madden and McQuinn draw from two conflict models. The first identifies three Levels of Conflict (Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution, 2000), in descending order: dispute, underlying conflict, and identity-based conflict. Dispute encompasses the presenting, often tangible conflict, such as the contested boundaries of a marine protected area. Underlying conflict provides relational and historical context for the dispute and is often reflective of actors' past interactions and unresolved conflicts that may or may not be related to the dispute at-hand. How actors navigate the dispute at-hand can be deeply affected by underlying conflict. An example of underlying conflict is persisting mistrust between actors based on past management decisions. Identity-based, or deep-rooted conflicts, derive from perceived threats to actor values, culture, and identity. Identity-based conflict might arise, for example, as resource users perceive management as a threat to their autonomy.
In Madden and McQuinn's (2014) Conflict Intervention Triangle—adapted from Moore (1986) and Walker and Daniels (1997)—substance comprises the triangle's apex, and process and relationships sit at its basal corners. Process is defined as, “decision-making design, equity and authority, and how (and by whom) these are exercised” (Madden and McQuinn, 2014, p. 102). Relationships refer to those between individual actors or stakeholder groups and the levels of trust and respect entwined in them. While substance, process, and relationships are all connected and integral to conflict resolution, substantive interventions are considered better suited for dispute, and relationship- and process-based interventions better suited for underlying and deep-rooted conflicts.
Researchers have applied Madden and McQuinn's framework to examine the social conflicts that underlie human-wildlife conflicts, highlighting their relevance to management (Dorresteijn et al., 2016; Hill, 2017; Crespin and Simonetti, 2019). Our study adapts the Madden and McQuinn framework to investigate stakeholder perceptions of how problems are defined and solutions are developed. We adapt their conflict models to interpret these two critical processes in fisheries management (Figure 1). Madden and McQuinn (2014) framework depicts three levels of conflict (dispute, underlying, and identity-based) and corresponding conflict resolution approaches (settlement, resolution, and reconciliation). Zimmermann et al. (2020) build on this framework and provide additional guidance, including specific approaches to identify and address each level of conflict. However, underlying and identity-based conflicts are often intertwined, and both derive potential benefits from reconciliatory solutions (Lederach, 1997; Lundy and McGovern, 2008). Within our study context, separating underlying and identity-based conflicts provides little benefit to our problem-solution analysis. We therefore interpret underlying and deep-rooted conflict together as facets of “deeper conflict” rather than as distinct tiers of a conflict hierarchy that benefit from distinct solutions. Further, we demonstrate interactions between dispute and deeper conflicts, which necessitate solutions incorporating dimensions of process, relationships, and power.
Figure 1. Our theoretical framework examines the process of problem definition, which in turn informs developing solutions in resource management. The framework is adapted from Madden and McQuinn (2014), who mobilized the Levels of Conflict (Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution, 2000) and Conflict Intervention Triangle models (Moore, 1986; Walker and Daniels, 1997, p. 22).
Case Study Site and Problem
In December 2016, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed a rule to list the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), citing significant declines in abundance throughout its habitat range due to overexploitation (Young C. N. et al., 2016). Subsequent management measures would likely focus on pelagic high-seas fisheries that inflict high shark bycatch and mortality rates (Bonfil, 1994; Gilman et al., 2008). However, the ESA listing's undetermined status and managers' and researchers' growing interest in oceanic whitetip sharks provided an opportunity to explore fisher-shark interactions in Hawai‘i more broadly. We took this opportunity to conduct a sociopolitical examination of the West Hawai‘i small boat fleet and its interactions with pelagic sharks, including, but not limited to the oceanic whitetip shark.
Information around pelagic shark interactions within the West Hawai‘i small boat fleet is largely undocumented. Shark species, interaction frequencies, outcomes, and determining factors for fisher and shark behavior were among the unknowns. Prior to this study, anecdotal evidence indicated that fisher-shark interactions within this fishery could produce negative outcomes for both fishers and sharks; namely, loss of fisher catch and gear, and shark injury. Fishers also expressed a desire to reduce these interactions, which they described as largely incidental and undesirable. Thus, shark conservation, research, and fishery impacts perspectives provided rich context to examine the implications of problem definition for developing solutions.
West Hawai‘i refers to the leeward, western coast of Hawai‘i Island (Figure 2). Its calm waters and proximity to pelagic species allow fishers to accumulate a relatively large number of fishing days per year with good visibility for pelagic shark observations. The West Hawai‘i small boat fishing community represents diverse fishing methods, experience levels, and ethnicities. It includes perspectives from local, outer island, and continental U.S. fishing cultures, and membership from the recreational, part- and full-time commercial, and charter fisheries.
Figure 2. Map of Hawai‘i Island within the main Hawaiian Islands. The West Hawai‘i region (including the location of Kailua-Kona) is indicated in blue.
West Hawai‘i fishers' exposure to fisheries management and research also lends itself well to a sociopolitical analysis. The West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA) encompasses four Marine Life Conservation Districts and seven Fisheries Management Areas, with bans on SCUBA spearfishing and the take of reef sharks and rays (State of Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources, 2019). Aquarium fishing has been suspended since 2017, with a recent environmental impact statement requesting limited permits rejected by the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR votes 7-0 against environmental impact statement for aquarium fishing permits in West Hawaii, 2020). Several local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operate there in lobbying and research support capacities (Tissot et al., 2009). West Hawai‘i is also a focus area for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Habitat Blueprint and Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PacIOOS) Hawaiian Islands Sentinel Site Cooperative. All of these inform the West Hawai‘i fishing community's perspectives on local science and management.
In months following the oceanic whitetip shark's proposed ESA listing, a team of University of Hawai‘i and NMFS-affiliated shark researchers expanded its pelagic shark-tagging efforts to include West Hawai‘i small boat fishers. The team hoped that fisher participation would enhance understanding of sharks' movements and alternatives to shark-handling practices that could result in mortality. The team trained fishers in shark-tagging protocols and shared information about shark life history, vulnerability to fishing activity, and management measures. Financial incentives were awarded to fishers who deployed electronic and identification tags on oceanic whitetip, silky (Carcharhinus falciformis), and bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus) sharks. The tagging program prioritized these species given their listing in the Convention on International Trade in Endagered Species' (CITES) Appendix II, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species as “Critically Endangered” and “Vulnerable.” The early growth of this collaborative program, now termed the Hawai‘i Community Tagging Program (HCTP), provided a valuable opportunity to observe evolving fisher-researcher relationships with a substantive focus on fisher-shark interactions.
Data Collection
Across disciplines, stakeholder perspectives have revealed new technical problem framings (Leong et al., 2007) and clarified the relevance of politics, stakeholder values, and culture to solution design (Watkin et al., 2012; Madden and McQuinn, 2014). Participatory processes have also been enlisted to challenge the biophysical constraints of fisheries problem-solving (Mikalsen and Jentoft, 2001; Beierle, 2002; Ebbin, 2011; Sayce et al., 2013). We combined semi-structured interviews with participant observation to explore problem definition and potential solutions through fisher perspective and fisher-researcher relationships. We sought to generate new understanding from the data rather than interpreting data through pre-established hypotheses using a qualitative, inductive approach. IRB clearance was obtained through NOAA's Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) under Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR) exempt project 19449, Socioeconomics of Western Pacific Fisheries.
Data were collected primarily through semi-structured interviews. Preliminary meetings with members of local fisher-oriented NGOs, HCTP, fishers, and fisheries social scientists informed development of an interview guide, solicited guidance around best practices for fisher engagement, and identified contacts within the West Hawai‘i fishing community. Public workshops were co-hosted by the lead author and HCTP given their shared target audience. Participation was also advertised through flyers distributed in tackle shops and harbors, and announcements in the local Hawai‘i Fishing News magazine. These printed materials were unsuccessful in connecting the lead author to new research participants. Additional interviewees were identified through the snowball sampling method, which relies on established participants' referrals to identify new contacts and user groups in their community (Atkinson and Flint, 2001).
In addition to serving as a subject of this case study's observations, the HCTP and its public workshops provided a venue for the lead author to promote participation in and share results from this case study. These shared venues for the lead author and HCTP to recruit participants and communicate results may have produced some bias among interviewees who also participated in the HCTP. However, data collected for this project are distinct from that of the HCTP and fewer than half of this study's interviewees were HCTP participants.
The fisher engagement strategies used in this case study and the HCTP had some similarities. Both initiatives sought to accommodate fishers while operating within the study scope and budget. Outreach efforts and public workshops were centered around Kailua-Kona, where many participants either lived or worked. Workshops were scheduled after consultation with research participants in an effort to make them more accessible to the local fishing community. For individual and small group meetings, HCTP PI and the lead author for this case study met with fishers in settings of their choice and made travel arrangements to accommodate fishers' schedules as much as possible. Case study interviews were conducted in family homes, at the Honokōhau Harbor, and at local restaurants. Informal, fisher-led HCTP gatherings also promoted participation in the tagging program. For example, one fisher hosted a gathering in his home. Previously the HCTP had difficulty connecting with commercial fishers given their unpredictable and demanding fishing schedules.
Case study interviews were conducted in-person from September 2017 to June 2018, and typically lasted 1–3 h. We asked participants about their relationship to fishing and fishing history; information sharing in Hawai‘i Island fisheries; shark interactions and handling practices; and local fisheries management and science (see Appendix in Supplementary Material for detailed interview guide). Interviews continued until data became saturated–meaning that new interviews repeated themes and ideas captured in former interviews (Saunders et al., 2018)–resulting in a total of 29 interviewees. Interviews were audio recorded and detailed notes were written up as soon after the interview as possible. Interviews were transcribed and interviewees were given a copy of their interview transcripts for voluntary review and revision.
Observations supplemented interview data on fishing practices and fisher-researcher interactions. The lead author conducted participant observation on three occasions with the HCTP research team. These included a chartered shark-tagging trip on a commercial fishing vessel out of Kailua-Kona and two public shark-tagging workshops held in October 2017 and 2018. At both workshops, the HCTP team trained fishers in tagging protocol, distributed shark-tagging gear, and reported on the progress of their research.
Data Analysis
Data analysis followed an inductive process typical of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Data were collected and primary analyses completed before selecting a theoretical framework. This approach enabled pursuit of themes important to interviewees and elicited connections between relevant biological, social, economic, and political components. The lead author coded all interview transcripts using NVivo software (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802, version 11 Plus). Preliminary codes followed the interview guide's broad themes: fisher identity, sharks, information-sharing, and management. Additional codes were created liberally to capture all relevant information, including descriptions of West Hawai‘i fishing practices and cultures through time, economic context, fishing motivations, human well-being, power, and knowledge. A transcript excerpt could be coded for multiple themes, overlapping or separate across the text. Two rounds of coding ensured that all relevant data were represented in the codebook and that codes were organized to reflect thematic relationships and consolidate coding redundancies.
In February 2019, the lead author returned to the study site to present preliminary results to research participants at a public HCTP meeting and solicit feedback. Twelve of ~30 attendees were interviewees. Although interviewees did not volunteer feedback in front of the group, the few who later corresponded with the lead investigator shared positive comments about the way their input was represented and volunteered their support for future collaborative research endeavors.
Research Participants
The 29 male interviewees represented diverse demographic and fishing identities (Table 1). Interviewees averaged 30 years of fishing experience in West Hawai‘i per fisher; a conservative estimate, excluding shoreline fishing that predates boat fishing ventures or formal fishing careers, and rich fishing experiences inherited from generations past. Independent of their charter, commercial, and recreational identities, a total of 16 interviewees described non-fishing occupations that either supplement their fishing income or serve as their full-time position. On average, interviewees described fishing for over 160 days per year in the peak of their careers. Interviewees' participation in collaborative research and management-related fisher engagement also varied, with most having limited experiences in either.
Table 1. Interviewee demographics.
Although participants' repertoire of fishing methods was extensive, those described most frequently by interviewees were handlining (n = 23), trolling (n = 21), and fishing with live bait (n = 18). Interviews covered a diverse range of target species, the most popular of which were deep bottomfish (primarily snappers and a grouper), ‘ahi (either bigeye or yellowfin, Thunnus obesus and T. albacares, respectively), marlin, and ‘ōpelu (mackerel scad, Decapterus macarellus). Other target species cited in interviewees' primary fisheries, past and present, included pelagics like mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus), aku (skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis), and ono (wahoo, Acanthocybium solandri), reef fish both for consumption and sale in the tropical fish trade, Kona crab (Ranina ranina), and black coral.
Results
Interview and observational data revealed dispute and deeper conflicts framing the fisher-shark interaction problem, along with several substantive, process-, and relationship-based solutions.
Problem Definition
We found that fisher-shark interaction problem framings are both disputative and steeped in deeper levels of conflict related to fisheries science and management. We expand on both of these below.
Dispute
Shark attributes described by interviewees were coded as negative, positive, or neutral depending on their overall cost or benefit to fishing activity. Negative descriptors were the most prominent (49% of all references). Most commonly, interviewees described sharks as competitors (26% of all references), generally and through two specific mechanisms. They described sharks as either depredating–removing hooked fish or bait from fishing gear (Gilman et al., 2008)–or deterring target fish from interacting with their gear. Competition for fish, in turn, translated to competition for fisher income and a threat to fisher livelihoods.
Sharks' competitive impact on fishing was greater for those who rely more on landing fish for income—full-time commercial fishers, for example, as opposed to part-time commercial, charter, or recreational fishers. Despite occupational differences, interviewees described these consistencies across the West Hawai‘i small boat fleet: increasing costs of fishing material, uncertain landings, and a fishing community that has grown rapidly in recent years. These conditions increase competition for fishing spots and a decent price at which to sell catch. More than two-thirds of interviewees described fishing as a “lifestyle” associated with financial insecurity.
Interviewees described sharks differently according to species. We selected three species that illustrate this diversity: tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier), oceanic whitetip, and thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) (Figure 3). Some descriptors were linked to interviewees' shark interaction frequencies and handling practices. Shark aggression and depredation (Figures 3A,B) were often talked about together and associated in some cases with shark mortality for its burden to fishing activity. “An aggressive, hungry shark is probably gonna die,” said one fisher. Sharks' role as fish indicators (Figures 3B,C) may increase interaction frequency because, “If there's sharks around, then you know there's fish around, why leave?” However, sharks as fish indicators were categorized positively because, as one fisher noted, “It's a good sign too. When you're getting the interactions with the oceanic whitetips there's more fish around normally.” In contrast, the danger (Figure 3A) or hassle (Figure 3C) that a shark imposes on a fisher might diminish fisher willingness to interact with certain species. Importantly, the relationship between shark descriptor and fisher behavior is not always the same. For example, tiger and thresher sharks were both described as economically valuable. However, tiger sharks' economic value was attributed to the benefit of their sensationalized image to the tourism industry, while thresher sharks' derived from their market value. Landed thresher sharks thus provide fishers opportunity for direct financial compensation, while tiger sharks' economic value is relatively inconsequential for fishers.
Figure 3. Interviewees' negative (dark red), positive (blue), and neutral (beige) descriptors of (A) tiger, (B) oceanic whitetip, and (C) thresher sharks, by number of references across all interviews. See Supplementary Table 1 for definitions and examples of all shark descriptors.
Interviewees noted a number of factors related to shark attributes, landing opportunity, social pressure, physical capacity, and investments in time and finances that affect their decisions during a shark interaction (Table 2). Any number of these can play a role in fisher behavior during a shark encounter, but the cost-benefit calculus varied by individual. For example, considering how many sharks vs. target species are in the area, one fisher commented:
[If] it's just nothing but sharks… [that's] time to quit, because not only are we going in the hole with our gas and our ice and our bait, they're taking our tackle, destroying our stuff…. We got a thousand dollars in the hole, we just have to let the conditions change out there until those damn sharks move out of here.
Table 2. Decision-making factors during a shark interaction.
Another fisher said, “If there's a lot of tuna and a lot of sharks, you find different ways to kind of get around the sharks.” At the intersection of shark species and financial considerations lies the market value of mako (Isurus spp.) and thresher sharks. One fisher commented: “It's really bycatch. You're going for ‘ahi and all of a sudden a thresher bites, and then you look at this thing, you don't have anything in your box, you go, ‘Oh I can make money killing this shark.’” Some fishers noted social factors affecting their behavior: “You don't know who's in the other boat too, so you [don't want to] just shoot [the sharks].”
Despite sharks' competitive impacts and the physical, financial, and time investment risks they pose to fishers, many interviewees described not devoting much thought to sharks prior to engaging in this case study or the HCTP. Many interviewees (n = 17) described sharks as incidental, non-target species. Fishers thus dedicated relatively little observational attention to sharks and discussed them with others in the fishing community only peripherally to their main fishing activity.
Deeper Conflicts
Deeper conflicts derive from threats to identity, culture, and values, or unresolved conflicts between actors. The deeper conflicts that emerged from interviews drew from broader discussions of local fisheries management and fishers' experiences with researchers and managers. Interviewees noted several problems in local fisheries management and science (Table 3). The most commonly cited were disconnect in fisher-manager or -researcher logic, experience, and power; misplaced management focus on small boat fishers; lack of enforcement; politicized decision-making; questionable data validity; and a lack of transparency around science and management. Each of these issues degraded fishers' perceptions of the legitimacy of fisheries management and science (noted with asterisks in Table 3). Interviewees referenced, for example, the scapegoating of fishers for less visible or manageable issues: “Most of these laws are people bored and they wanna blame fisheries for the depletion of fish, or hunters for depletion of animals in the forest, even though they don't see the real issue.”
Table 3. Problems in fisheries management and science described by interviewees.
Often, deeper conflicts came to light as fishers described engaging with researchers and managers. Three problem themes emerged in direct connection with these experiences: fishers' voice, apprehension around engagement, and resignation from engagement processes (Table 4). Although interviewees expressed interest in sharing their voice and perspectives with researchers and managers, opportunities to do so were often described as limited or superficial. Several interviewees described past experiences that resulted in mistrust of managers and researchers, fear of losing fishing access, or a withdrawal from fisher engagement processes altogether. In some cases fishers expressed these concerns, facilitating transparent fisher-researcher discussions that helped to overcome them:
I had to ask about your goals and intent because… I go to meetings now, I know what they're trying to do to Kona. They're trying to make this an aquarium…. They have to also think about the culture. And the local people here.
Table 4. Interviewee perceptions around fisher engagement.
In discussions of fisheries management and engagement, interviewees perceived certain actors and knowledge types to wield greater power than others. Often, interviewees described themselves or their communities as adversely affected by these power dynamics: “They make these decisions for this stuff without really knowing the impact… it has on our life.” Interviewees described financial capital and formal, academic, and scientific knowledge to facilitate access to management decision-making and leverage over its outcomes. One fisher advised, “To fix all the problems, you have to get your degree… and find [a] route to the money.” Fishers, who offered experiential knowledge through communication styles often considered informal, felt disadvantaged by this dynamic. Interviewees perceived managers to assert their power through uninformed decision-making, evading answers when fishers' knowledge challenged their own, and hosting public meetings with limited outreach or accessibility. Interviewees perceived researchers' power through their representation of fisheries and delivery of fisher data to managers, and a lack of transparency around their science or goals. Interviewees felt both researchers and managers influence decisions with relatively little impact to themselves compared to fishers who experience direct impact. Some research participants expressed concerns that this case study and the HCTP intended to create new fishing regulations and inquired about funding sources. These examples of power embedded in deeper conflict cut across various problem themes from Tables 3, 4. Financial capital and influence on public perception also emerged from interviews as forms of power wielded by the tourism industry, high seas fisheries, environmentalists, the wealthy, and NGOs.
Many of these deeper conflicts denied or threatened key elements of fisher identity. Interviewees most commonly discussed their identities as self-reliant, stewards, local, multi-generational fishers, and scientifically curious. These emphasized fisher agency, practices of self-management to sustain fisheries, and commitment to place and local fishing culture. Interviewees also took pride in their acuity for on-the-water observation and experimentation and expressed interest in novel scientific data collection methods and projects, including shark-tagging data.
Solution Development
This case study documented several solutions rooted in substance, relationships, and process. These were either discussed by interviewees or exemplified in the engagement strategies employed by the lead author or HCTP.
Substance
The substantive solutions that emerged from interviews and observations included shark-handling alternatives, regulation, information provision, and financial incentives. Table 5 provides fisher perspectives and exemplary quotes for each of these solution types. Fishers were amenable to shark- handling alternatives that would preserve factors like their landing opportunity and safety (Table 2). For example, “jugging” consists of rigging a jug or floated object to a baited hook. This contraption is often deployed unattached to the vessel. Once taken by a shark, it maintains the shark's surface position and deters it from the fishing area or target species. Research participants raised such ideas as biodegradable jugs or more readily eroding jugging rigs, and provided anecdotal evidence of shark-tagging as an effective shark deterrent. Interviewees also discussed various regulatory measures, but often in tandem with a lack of enforcement or legitimacy that cripples their effectiveness. Some fishers requested informational tools, like shark identification guides with species' protected statuses. On rare occasions, fishers described modifying their shark-handling practices as they acquired new information. One fisher said after learning of thresher sharks' vulnerability: “Now I will not shoot a thresher shark that I catch. Because [HCTP PI] informed me…. And we have a deep respect for the ocean.” But, as one fisher put it, “Where there's sharks there's fish.” Challenges inherent in fishing like sharks and financial cost limit fishers' capacity to modify their behavior. By directly offsetting cost, financial incentives may provide fishers access to alternative shark-handling practices like tagging: “You give me x amount of dollars to go tag every single shark that comes by the boat, they'll live. I'll spend all day tagging sharks.”
Table 5. Substantive solutions.
We found that the impact of any substantive solution on fisher perspective and behavior depends on a number of variables including livelihood dependence on fishing and fishing method. A fisher using live bait, for example, has more behavior change flexibility than a handline fisher. Upon encountering a shark, one live bait fisher described his options to continue moving through the area or reduce the likelihood of shark interactions by switching to an artificial lure. Handline fishers, in contrast, are committed to a fishing spot and their chances of landing a fish depend on consistent chumming. This increases the likelihood of shark interactions and makes avoidance maneuvers challenging. Other variables related to fishers' capacity for behavior change are less tangible. Some interviewees, for example, described their receptivity to modify shark-handling practices as a function of their age or experience level.
Process and Relationships
Drawing upon our adapted theoretical framework, we posit that process- and relationship-based solutions may be better equipped to address deeper conflicts. In their discussions of fisheries management, science, and fisher engagement, interviewees described several solution elements attentive to process and relationships (Table 6). Interviewees highlighted the importance and inseparability of trust-building and transparent fisher-researcher and -manager communication, connecting these processes to tangible benefits for data collection and scientific knowledge. Fishers also noted that convenience can help to facilitate fisher participation given fishers' demanding schedules and geographic spread. One participant said, “Fishing advocate[s]… They're kinda retired and they have time to make a difference.” Finally, several interviewees highlighted the fishery's diversity and the need to account for it in our engagement processes:
People have all kinds of different perspectives…. I know people that have a high paying job, they fish on weekends, they only catch for recreation…. You gotta get everybody's opinion…. Not only one side of the story. Please capture everybody.
Table 6. Process- and relationships-based solution elements.
Cross-Cutting Strategies
This case study documented two strategies that cross-cut multiple substantive and deeper-level solutions: collaborative research and knowledge exchange.
Collaborative Research
This case study and HCTP took collaborative research approaches to enlist fishers in data collection. Researchers employed various strategies to increase fisher participation, from engagement processes (see Methods) to financial rewards for tag deployment. Mutually beneficial outcomes like improved data collection or shark deterrents also incentivized fisher engagement. Fishers described being motivated to participate by their interest in the development of a shark deterrent or handling alternative, and shark behavior and habitat use: “That kind of information might be useful. Then certain times of the year maybe [they're] not around, and the fish are biting, that's when you go… That's another tool in our tool bag when we go fishing.” One fisher also contacted the HCTP PI offering to tag sharks for free if funds were scarce, and thanked her for including fishers in HCTP's collection of “real true data.”
Key actors, respected and in communication with others, were instrumental in bolstering fisher participation in collaborative research efforts. Interviewees highlighted researchers' and managers' opportunities to use social structures within the community to build trust and share information. One fisher noted key actors' roles in gaining community support: “If you can somehow get the support of the iconic guys… Then they'll spread the word, ah?… Rather than the scientists coming over telling, ‘You guys should be doing this’… It's good to garner some support in-house.” Several fishers also noted that their decision to participate resulted from friends' encouragement rather than, for example, learning of these projects through printed materials: “I had actually heard about it through the flyers at Pacific Rim, and saw it at the bulletin board and stuff. I just wasn't necessarily gonna go until I heard that other guys were going.”
Growth in HCTP participation was observable through attendance at its public tagging workshops. HCTP's first workshop in 2017 was attended by 6 ocean users, most of them fishers. Thirty people attended its second tagging workshop a year later. Afterward, one fisher reached out to congratulate the HCTP team, commenting, “It's typically hard to get that many fishermen to meet for anything. One of the things I got from what you said last Saturday was that getting this kind of participation was a main point of your interest. If that's true, you succeeded.” When the lead author returned to Kailua-Kona in February 2019 to share interview results with research participants at a public HCTP workshop, about 30 ocean users attended, including 12 interviewees.
Two-way communication during interviews and HCTP public workshops facilitated trust-building between fishers and researchers. During these events, fishers asked questions and voiced concerns about researchers' motives and goals, allowing researchers to recognize and respond to them explicitly. This process built trust with participating fishers and encouraged their continued support in data collection and interviewee referral. Interviewees also noted both situational and more general shifts in their own shark-handling practices, including the release of certain shark species, following case study interviews and conversations with the HCTP PI. One fisher, for example, described his friend's remarks upon encountering an oceanic whitetip shark: “[He] told me, ‘Ho, I'd kill him but then I thought about [lead author]. I thought, ahh, no.’” Importantly, the lead author took care during interviews not to convey judgment or make arguments against fishers' handling practices. Thus, fisher-researcher communication and relationship-building may also play an inadvertent role in shaping fisher perspectives and behaviors.
In addition to building relationships, trust, and encouraging participation, the HCTP's collaborative research efforts enabled the collection of valuable data that might not otherwise be available. The HCTP trained and equipped fishers for opportunistic shark-tagging. In the 2 years after its first public workshop in 2017, participating fishers deployed 37 tags on oceanic whitetip, thresher, blue, and silky sharks. Prior to this, HCTP researchers independently deployed 15 tags in a comparable 2-year period beginning in 2015, at greater expense in time and finances to the program. Fishers shared their shark-handling practices with the research team in an effort to brainstorm and develop non-lethal shark-handling practices. Some participants were also given special tags to monitor sharks' survival following interaction and, in some cases, jugging. These data expand HCTP researchers' understanding of the impact of small boat fishers' handling practices to sharks.
Knowledge Exchange
Fisher-researcher knowledge exchange was facilitated by collaborative approaches to research, but represents a distinct process in its validation of multiple types and sources of knowledge. Collaborative research and knowledge exchange can, but do not necessarily co-occur. In our case study and the HCTP, researchers and fishers engaged in on-the-water fieldwork and workshop discussions that allowed them to share their perspectives, and demonstrated a willingness to learn from one another. This resulted in shifts of fisher and researcher perspective and, in some cases, behavior. One participant said:
For once someone's actually going out there with commercial fishermen. Not just one… with multiple. You guys are kinda seeing everyone's point of view. And at the same time, getting everyone to change a little bit toward what you guys see.
One fisher noted the potential collective benefits of fisher, researcher, and manager exchange:
I think if you create an opportunity that's non-threatening that has nothing to do with taking away their rights, the science and the managers are gonna get a lot of valuable information that they might not otherwise hear, and the fishermen that come… their knowledge and understanding of these species that are important are gonna be dramatically increased.
In the HCTP, both fishers and researchers benefitted from the exchange of knowledge, whether acquired through decades of fishing experience or scientific research. One fisher provided examples from his conversations with the HCTP PI, in which he contextualized tagged sharks' movement data using his knowledge of buoy locations, enlightening her to some sharks' repeated visits to a specific offshore buoy. He noted, “It was really neat though, sharing your knowledge. Like I pointed out to [HCTP PI] about the buoy thing, and she pointed out to me about all the things that I wasn't aware of.” This fisher also highlighted an important difference between the ways researchers and fishers like himself perceive the fisher-shark interaction problem:
Most of the scientists feel that we… don't like the sharks “cause” they eat [our] fish. I can count the number of times on one hand that a shark's actually attacked my fish. The problem is when they're in the area, we can't catch fish. They create a barrier.
Knowledge exchange was not a primary goal of the HCTP. But, as a result of participants' respect for both experiential and scientific knowledge, it improved fishers' and researchers' understanding of shark interactions.
Discussion
This case study took advantage of managers' and researchers' growing interest in the oceanic whitetip shark to explore the poorly documented fisher-shark interactions of Hawai‘i. Stepping back from the dominant shark conservation narrative, we engaged West Hawai‘i small boat fishers to understand from their perspective what problems frame fisher-shark interactions. This early investment in problem diagnosis is critical to develop solutions that are not only effective, but avoid intensifying any existing conflicts (Zimmermann et al., 2020). We used our adapted framework (Figure 1) to examine the layered conflicts defining this “problem” beyond threats to pelagic sharks, and reflect on potential solutions better oriented to coexistence. Prominent among dispute-level problems was decreased fishing efficiency. We documented some applications for substantive solutions like information provision, financial incentives, and the development of shark-handling alternatives. However, diversity among fishers and the various factors interviewees described guiding their behavior on the water necessitate integrated, multi-pronged solutions that also account for deeper conflicts. Deeper conflicts revealed in this case study were contextualized by relationships, power dynamics, and identity-based conflicts.
Interviewee definitions of the fisher-shark interaction problem were dominated by dispute, referencing sharks as fishing competitors, financial costs of an interaction, and fishers' decision-making factors during shark encounters. However, our findings reinforce that the meaning fishers ascribe to sharks (Figure 3) varies according to species and context (Molony and Thomson, 2020), with emotional, cultural, safety, and economic considerations (Glaus et al., 2019). Upon encountering a shark, fishers included situational shark attributes, landing opportunity, physical capacity, time and finances invested, and social pressures among their decision-making variables (Table 2). These represent a number of individual capacity, economic, and social norms variables that drive fisher behavior and merit further investigation (St. John et al., 2010). To the extent that these variables predict fisher behavior, interventions may enable alternative decision-making pathways (Fulton et al., 2011); for example, by mitigating fishers' financial costs.
Interviewees offered some substantive solutions that address these goals, including providing information, compensating fishers, and developing shark-handling alternatives. Some interviewees described shifts in their perspective or behavior after building relationships with researchers or learning about sharks' biology or threatened status. However, the diversity of West Hawai‘i fishers' demographics, values, attitudes, and capacity for behavior change around sharks necessitates more than social influence and information provision (Stern, 2000; Campbell and Cornwell, 2008; Reddy et al., 2017). Other solutions may help to address this diversity. Our results suggest that financial incentives may promote fisher engagement and increase fisher access to a broader suite of behavioral and shark-handling options, including shark-tagging. Financial incentives may benefit fisheries management goals and cost-effectiveness (Innes et al., 2015), but their success is conditional (Bladon et al., 2016). Fisheries bycatch mitigation may benefit from the application of financial incentives with multi-pronged approaches that also prioritize, for example, collaborative research or efforts to support community leadership and stewardship capacities (Lent and Squires, 2017; Milner-Gulland et al., 2018). Interviewees also expressed interest in a shark-handling alternative or deterrent, making suggestions for non-lethal handling strategies that might preserve fishing opportunity. This illustrates the collaborative space that exists for fishers, researchers, and managers to pursue solutions with collective benefits for fishers, sharks, and those invested in shark conservation.
Although we documented success in applying substantive solutions to disputes, we also recognize that solutions may cross-cut levels of our framework. The interpretation that levels of conflict require solutions at equal and potentially shallower levels (Zimmermann et al., 2020) may obscure innovative problem-solving. For example, fishers' perception of sharks as threats to fishing opportunity has been connected to their diminished support for shark conservation (Drymon and Scyphers, 2017). However, fishers' participation in this study and the HCTP highlights opportunities to dissociate the two. Firstly, like U.S. recreational fishers who expressed a lack of concern for “nuisance” sharks frequently caught as bycatch (McClellan Press et al., 2016), interviewees devoted little attention to sharks historically, characterizing them as incidental, non-target species. Secondly, interviewees described their increasing attention to sharks–and in certain cases, adopting less harmful handling practices following fisher-researcher engagement–over the course of this study. Along with the role of social pressure in determining fishers' behavior, these examples underline the potential for social norms (Nyborg et al., 2016), influential actors (St. John et al., 2010), and fisher-researcher relationships (Campbell and Cornwell, 2008) to affect fishers' participation and on-the-water behavior. If researchers and managers seek only substantive solutions to disputes, they may miss opportunities to change fisher attitudes and behaviors through process- and relationships-based approaches.
Substantive solutions may also generate deeper conflicts instead of resolving disputes as intended. Given the deeper conflicts described by interviewees and the region's absence of enforcement (Tissot et al., 2009), regulation may not only fail to achieve its goals but critically impede other fisheries management efforts. Following regulation, fishers may assign additional negative meaning to sharks, further complicating sustainable resolution of fisher-shark interactions as has been seen with other species (Nie, 2001; Naughton-Treves and Treves, 2005). Inappropriate substantive solutions may also exacerbate stakeholder conflict (Redpath et al., 2013) and diminish fishers' perceived legitimacy of management and science. Degraded legitimacy is of concern given the benefits of legitimacy for compliance (Levi et al., 2009), particularly when enforcement is lacking (McClanahan et al., 2006) as in the case in West Hawai‘i. Deeper conflicts like these may then obstruct parallel and future efforts to mitigate fisheries management problems involving the same actor groups, whether or not the dispute is focused on sharks. In this case study, for example, researchers encountered and addressed feelings of apprehension from past fisher-researcher interactions (Table 4) to build trust and improve collaborative research efforts. Thus, degraded relationships, mistrust, and unresolved conflict at once challenge problem-solving endeavors (Schuckman, 2001; Ansell and Gash, 2007) and highlight opportunities for creative, collaborative solutions.
Awareness of deeper conflicts is therefore critical to effective problem-solving. This study illuminated issues of power, historical relationships, and identity in fishers' problem definitions that necessitate relationships- and process-based solutions (Webber et al., 2007; Campbell and Cornwell, 2008; Penney et al., 2017; Shiffman et al., 2017; Crespin and Simonetti, 2019). Interviewees described concerns about fisheries management and science that degraded fishers' perceptions of their legitimacy (Table 3). Among them, disconnect between fishers' and researchers' or managers' knowledge and vulnerability to fisheries management, politicized science and decision-making, poor enforcement, data validity, and transparency. Interviewees also perceived certain actors, such as fishing industry or environmental groups, to have greater organizational capacity, financial capital, and access to management decisions—forms of power that play important roles in conservation contexts (Schuckman, 2001; Chapin, 2004). When regulations were perceived to be inequitable or politically motivated, interviewees doubted management logic and efficacy. Despite fisheries scientists' and managers' growing recognition of the value of stakeholder knowledge (Neis et al., 1999; Reed et al., 2007; Wendt and Starr, 2009), interviewees also noted power differentials resulting from fishers' lack of formalized knowledge or specific language through which input is typically valued. Designing engagement to increase access and participation for groups that possess alternative forms of knowledge, capital, or language can help to address these imbalances. Fishers also perceived management to deny their agency, connection to place, and stewardship. Solutions that ignore issues of identity may fail to resolve conflicts as intended (Hicks, 2001; Rothman and Olson, 2011; Doucey, 2011). Finally, interviewees expressed concerns about being misrepresented or contributing to a process that would result in fishing closures or restrictions (Silver and Campbell, 2005; St. Martin and Hall-Arber, 2008; Carruthers and Neis, 2011). To improve outcomes, fisheries solutions might deliberately consider fisher identities, cultures, and physical and financial risks (Faasen and Watts, 2007; Coulthard et al., 2011; Rivera et al., 2017).
To address layered problems and avoid generating new, deeper conflicts through singular approaches, robust fisheries management solutions should consider integrated, multi-pronged approaches (Madden and McQuinn, 2014; Ayers and Leong, 2020; Booth et al., 2020). To this end, our work demonstrates potential for collaborative research and knowledge exchange to incorporate substance-, process-, and relationships-based elements. Through regular communication, researchers shared information about shark biology and management statuses, outcomes of collaborative research, and responded to fishers' concerns about researchers' motives and goals. Engagement included early disclosure of possible risks and outcomes of engagement, which helped to establish fisher-researcher trust and reciprocity. Key actors and face-to-face interactions encouraged information sharing and certain behaviors (Abrahamse and Steg, 2013; Mbaru and Barnes, 2017), including shark release. Key actors were also instrumental in recruiting participants and gathering data. As engagement exerts high, prohibitive transaction costs on its participants, requiring investments in time, energy, and money (Ayers et al., 2017), researchers made efforts to minimize these costs to better include diverse fisher perspectives. Other key process-based engagement elements include foundations in trust, equity, and learning, explicit goals (Reed, 2008), facilitative capacity, and transparent decision-making (Reed, 2008; Vaughan and Caldwell, 2015; Mease et al., 2018).
Collaborative research efforts documented in this case study improved fishers' and researchers' understanding of fisher-shark interactions and enabled the collection of otherwise inaccessible shark interaction data through interviews and tagging. A collaborative approach may improve the cost-efficiency of data collection (Mackinson and Nøttestad, 1998). Just as local, participatory processes may improve the perceived justness and legitimacy of regulations (McClanahan et al., 2006), collaborative research may improve the credibility of resulting data for both researchers and fishers (Hartley and Robertson, 2006; Wendt and Starr, 2009).
Collaborative research and knowledge exchange also forged a shared space to pursue novel on-the-water strategies to mitigate fisher-shark interactions. As fishers and researchers exchanged knowledge, both groups acquired new understanding of the problem by recognizing the value in both experiential and scientific knowledge (Hartley and Robertson, 2006). This learning process is crucial to bridging stakeholder disconnect and facilitating productive discourse (Adams et al., 2003). Engagement processes that facilitate the sharing and adaptation of conflicting values and interests are likely to benefit outcomes' legitimacy and durability (Søreng, 2006; Redpath et al., 2013).
Conclusion
Complex fisheries problems are often identified and managed based on biophysical, dispute-level problem definitions. This study delivers a foundational inventory of localized sociopolitical context relevant to pelagic sharks and their interactions with West Hawai‘i small boat fishers. By identifying factors that shape fishers' diverse perceptions and behavior around sharks, researchers, and managers, we take a crucial first step toward strategies that are more cost-effective, equitable, and prepared to achieve their goals (Booth et al., 2019). While others have applied Madden and McQuinn (2014) framework to examine conflict in various contexts, including human-wildlife conflict, we adapted it to uncover hidden problems and solutions. This allows framework users to question monolithic problem definitions, account for stakeholder politics and histories in problem-solving which may appear unrelated to the dispute, and identify potentially harmful management pathways.
The fisher-researcher exchanges integral to this study and the Hawai‘i Community Tagging Program improved fisher access to management discourse, fisher-researcher relationships, and both groups' understanding of sharks and their interactions with Hawai‘i small boat fisheries. These outcomes indicate that collaborative solution-finding efforts could reduce costs and negative outcomes and produce novel benefits to local fishers, sharks, and the research and management communities invested in them.
Pelagic sharks represent an international policy concern given their mobility and global distribution. This case study illustrates that the sociopolitical contexts for pelagic shark management not only require diagnosis at local scales, but reveal process- and relationship-based solutions that international policy may not be able to provide. This framework can be applied locally to illuminate deeper conflicts and innovative solutions wherever humans and wildlife might coexist. Furthermore, the framework has utility wherever we seek solutions amidst dissonant problem definitions, threatened identities, fractured relationships, and power inequities.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available due to confidentiality considerations, data can only be shared anonymously, in aggregate. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to Mia A. Iwane, mia.iwane@noaa.gov.
Ethics Statement
This study was reviewed and approved by University of Hawai‘i Institutional Review Board. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
MI collected and analyzed data, adapted the theoretical framework to synthesize results, and wrote the manuscript under the guidance of her thesis committee members KO, KL, and MV. KO served as the committee chair, providing oversight along with KL throughout the project. All authors provided critical feedback to shape the manuscript.
Funding
This project was funded by the NOAA Cooperative Research Program to JIMAR award number NA16NMF4320058.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
We extend deep gratitude to each of the fishers who participated in this research and to the HCTP team who welcomed our collaboration with their work. Thank you to map maker Joey Lecky for producing Figure 2.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2021.669105/full#supplementary-material
References
Abrahamse, W., and Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1773–1785. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029
Acuña-Marrero, D., de la Cruz-Modino, R., Smith, A. N. H., Salinas-de-León, P., Pawley, M. D. M., and Anderson, M. J. (2018). Understanding human attitudes towards sharks to promote sustainable coexistence. Marine Policy 91, 122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.018
Adams, W. M., Brockington, D., Dyson, J., and Vira, B. (2003). Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science 302, 1915–1916. doi: 10.1126/science.1087771
Ansell, C., and Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 18, 543–571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032
Aswani, S., Basurto, X., Ferse, S., Glaser, M., Campbell, L., Cinner, J. E., et al. (2018). Marine resource management and conservation in the Anthropocene. Environ. Conserv. 45, 192–202. doi: 10.1017/S0376892917000431
Atkinson, R., and Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball research strategies. Soc. Res. Update 33, 1–4. Available online at: https://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU33.PDF (accessed April 19, 2021).
Ayers, A. L., Kittinger, J. N., Imperial, M. T., and Vaughan, M. B. (2017). Making the transition to co-management governance arrangements in Hawai‘i: a framework for understanding transaction and transformation costs. Int. J. Commons 11, 388–421. doi: 10.18352/ijc.709
Ayers, A. L., and Leong, K. L. (2020). Examining the seascape of compliance in U.S. Pacific island fisheries. Marine Policy 115, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103820
Bardwell, L. V. (1991). Problem-framing: a perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environ. Manag. 15, 603–612. doi: 10.1007/BF02589620
Beierle, T. C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis 22, 739–749. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00065
Bladon, A. J., Short, K. M., Mohammed, E. Y., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2016). Payments for ecosystem services in developing world fisheries. Fish Fish. 17, 839–859. doi: 10.1111/faf.12095
BLNR votes 7-0 against environmental impact statement for aquarium fishing permits in West Hawaii (2020, May 23). Star Advertiser. Available online at: https://www.staradvertiser.com/2020/05/23/breaking-news/blnr-votes-7-0-against-environmental-impact-statement-for-aquarium-fishing-permits-in-west-hawaii/ (accessed October 15, 2020).
Booth, H., Mardhiah, U., Siregar, H., Hunter, J., Giyanto Putra, M. I. H., et al. (2020). An integrated approach to tackling wildlife crime: impact and lessons learned from the world's largest targeted manta ray fishery. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, 1–18. doi: 10.1111/csp2.314
Booth, H., Squires, D., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2019). The neglected complexities of shark fisheries, and priorities for holistic risk-based management. Ocean Coastal Manag. 182, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104994
Campbell, L. M., and Cornwell, M. L. (2008). Human dimensions of bycatch reduction technology: current assumptions and directions for future research. Endanger. Species Res. 5, 325–334. doi: 10.3354/esr00172
Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution (2000). Becoming a Third-Party Neutral: Resource Guide. Ottawa, ON: Ridgewood Foundation for Community-Based Conflict Resolution (Int'l).
Carruthers, E. H., and Neis, B. (2011). Bycatch mitigation in context: Using qualitative interview data to improve assessment and mitigation in a data-rich fishery. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2289–2299. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.007
Chapin, M. (2004). A challenge to conservationists. World Watch 17, 17–31. Available online at: http://danadeclaration.org/pdf/worldwatch.pdf (accessed April 19, 2021).
Clark, D. A., and Slocombe, D. S. (2011). Grizzly bear conservation in the foothills model forest: appraisal of a collaborative ecosystem management effort. Policy Sci. 44, 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11077-010-9118-y
Clarke, S. C., McAllister, M. K., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Kirkwood, G. P., Michielsens, C. G. J., Agnew, D. J., et al. (2006). Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1115–1126. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00968.x
Collins, C., Letessier, T. B., Broderick, A., Wijesundara, I., and Nuno, A. (2020). Using perceptions to examine human responses to blanket banks: the case of the thresher landing-ban in Sri Lanka. Marine Policy 121, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104198
Coulthard, S., Johnson, D., and McGregor, J. A. (2011). Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: a social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 453–463. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.003
Crespin, S. J., and Simonetti, J. A. (2019). Reconciling farming and wild nature: Integrating human-wildlife coexistence into the land-sharing and land-sparing framework. Ambio 48, 131–138. doi: 10.1007/s13280-018-1059-2
Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict: social factors affecting human-wildlife conflict resolution. Anim. Conserv. 13, 458–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x
Dorresteijn, I., Milcu, A. I., Leventon, J., Hanspach, J., and Fischer, J. (2016). Social factors mediating human-carnivore coexistence: understanding thematic strands influencing coexistence in Central Romania. Ambio 45, 490–500. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0760-7
Doucey, M. (2011). Understanding the root causes of conflicts: why it matters for international crisis management. Int. Affairs Rev. XX, 1–8. Available online at: https://iar-gwu.org/print-archive/9w4e9g1kqj9n2ui95nfsjjbxbh876g (accessed April 19, 2021).
Drymon, J. M., and Scyphers, S. B. (2017). Attitudes and perceptions influence recreational angler support for shark conservation and fisheries sustainability. Mar. Policy 81, 153–159. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.001
Ebbin, S. A. (2011). The problem with problem definition: mapping the discursive terrain of conservation in two Pacific salmon management regimes. Soc. Nat. Res. 24, 148–164. doi: 10.1080/08941920903468639
Faasen, H., and Watts, S. (2007). Local community reaction to the “no-take” policy on fishing in the Tsitsikamma national park, South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 64, 36–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.026
French, R. P., Lyle, J. M., Twardek, W. M., Cooke, S. J., and Semmens, J. M. (2019). A characterization of Australian shortfin mako shark anglers. Mar. Policy 110, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103550
Friedrich, L. A., Jefferson, R., and Glegg, G. (2014). Public perceptions of sharks: gathering support for shark conservation. Mar. Policy 47, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.02.003
Fulton, E. A., Smith, A. D. M., Smith, D. C., and Putten, I. E. (2011). Human behavior: the key source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish Fish, 12, 2–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00371.x
Garla, R. C., Freitas, R. H. A., Calado, J. F., Paterno, G. B. C., and Carvalho, A. R. (2015). Public awareness of the economic potential and threats to sharks of a tropical oceanic archipelago in the western South Atlantic. Mar. Policy 60, 128–133. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.06.012
Gilman, E., Chaloupka, M., Merrifield, M., Malsol, N. D., and Cook, C. (2015). Standardized catch and survival rates, and effect of a ban on shark retention, Palau pelagic longline fishery. Aquat. Conserv. 26, 1031–1062. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2599
Gilman, E. L., Clarke, S., Brothers, N., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mandelman, J., Mangel, J., et al. (2008). Shark interactions in pelagic longline fisheries. Mar. Policy 32, 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2007.05.001
Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., and Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 212, 7357–7360. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701768104
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. doi: 10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014
Glaus, K. B. J., Adrian-Kalchhauser, I., Piovano, S., Appleyard, S. A., Brunnschweiler, J. M., and Rico, C. (2019). Fishing for profit or food? Socio-economic drivers and fishers' attitudes towards sharks in Fiji. Mar. Policy 100, 249–257. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.037
Hartley, T. W., and Robertson, R. A. (2006). Stakeholder engagement, cooperative fisheries research and democratic science: the case of the Northeast Consortium. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 13, 161–171. Available online at: https://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her132/hartleyrobertson.pdf (accessed April 19, 2021).
Hicks, T. (2001). Another look at identity-based conflict: the roots of conflict in the psychology of consciousness. Negot. J. 17, 35–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2001.tb00225.x
Hill, C. M. (2017). Primate crop feeding behavior, crop protection, and conservation. Int. J. Primatol. 38, 385–400. doi: 10.1007/s10764-017-9951-3
Innes, J., Pascoe, S., Wilcox, C., Jennings, S., and Paredes, S. (2015). Mitigating undesirable impacts in the marine environment: a review of market-based management measures. Front. Mar. Sci. 2:76. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00076
Jaiteh, V. F., Loneragan, N. R., and Warren, C. (2017). The end of shark finning? Impacts of declining catches and fin demand on coastal community livelihoods. Mar. Policy 82, 224–233. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.027
Kumar, K. V. A., Pravin, P., and Meenakumari, B. (2016). Bait, bait loss, and depredation in pelagic longline fisheries—a review. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquaculture 24, 295–304. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2016.1162134
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Lent, R., and Squires, D. (2017). Reducing marine mammal bycatch in global fisheries: an economics approach. Deep-Sea Res. II 140, 268–277. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2017.03.005
Leong, K. M., Decker, D. J., Forester, J., Curtis, P. D., and Wild, M. A. (2007). Expanding problem frames to understand human-wildlife conflicts in urban-proximate parks. J. Park Recreat. Admin. 25, 62–78. Available online at: https://js.sagamorepub.com/jpra/article/view/1351 (accessed April 19, 2021).
Levi, M., Sacks, A., and Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. Am. Behav. Sci. 53, 354–375. doi: 10.1177/0002764209338797
Lundy, P., and McGovern, M. (2008). Whose justice? Rethinking transitional justice from the bottom up. J. Law Soc. 35, 265–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00438.x
Mackinson, S., and Nøttestad, L. (1998). Combining local and scientific knowledge. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 8, 481–490. doi: 10.1023/A:1008847106984
Madden, F., and McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation's blind spot: the case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biol. Conserv. 178, 97–106. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.015
Marchini, S., Ferraz, K. M. P. M. B., Zimmermann, A., Guimarães-Luiz, T., Morato, R., Correa, P. L. P., et al. (2019). “Planning for coexistence in a complex human-dominated world,” in Human-Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence, eds B. Frank, J. A. Glikman, and S. Marchin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 414. doi: 10.1017/9781108235730.022
Mason, J. G., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mangel, J. C., Brodie, S., Bograd, S. J., Crowder, L. B., et al. (2019). Convergence of fishers' knowledge with a species distribution model in a Peruvian shark fishery. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, 1–10. doi: 10.1111/csp2.13
May, C. K. (2013). Power across scales and levels of fisheries governance: explaining the active non-participation of fishers in two rivers, North Carolina. J. Rural Stud. 32, 26–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.04.002
Mbaru, E. K., and Barnes, M. L. (2017). Key players in conservation diffusion: using social network analysis to identify critical injection points. Biol. Conserv. 210, 222–232. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.031
McClanahan, T. R., Marnane, M. J., Cinner, J. E., and Kiene, W. E. (2006). A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Curr. Biol. 16, 1408–1413. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.062
McClellan Press, K., Mandelman, J., Burgess, E., Cooke, S. J., Nguyen, V. M., and Danylchuk, A. J. (2016). Catching sharks: recreational saltwater angler behaviours and attitudes regarding shark encounters and conservation: saltwater angler behaviors and attitudes regarding shark encounters. Aquat. Conserv. 26, 689–702. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2581
Mease, L. A., Erickson, A., and Hicks, C. (2018). Engagement takes a (fishing) village to manage a resource: principles and practice of effective stakeholder engagement. J. Environ. Manag. 212, 248–257. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.015
Mikalsen, K. H., and Jentoft, S. (2001). From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fisheries management. Mar. Policy 25, 281–292. doi: 10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00015-X
Milner-Gulland, E. J., Garcia, S., Arlidge, W., Bull, J., Charles, A., Dagorn, L., et al. (2018). Translating the terrestrial mitigation hierarchy to marine megafauna by-catch. Fish and Fisheries, 19, 547–561. doi: 10.1111/faf.12273
Mitchell, J. D., McLean, D. L., Collin, S. P., and Langlois, T. J. (2018). Shark depredation in commercial and recreational fisheries. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 28, 715–748. doi: 10.1007/s11160-018-9528-z
Molony, B. W., and Thomson, D. P. (2020). Managing the super-shark: recommendations to improve communication and debate about chondrichthyans. Mar. Policy 118, 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103983
Naughton-Treves, L., and Treves, A. (2005). “Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa,” in People and Wildlife, eds R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 252–277. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614774.017
Neis, B., Schneider, D. C., Felt, L., Haedrich, R. L., Fischer, J., and Hutchings, J. A. (1999). Fisheries assessment: what can be learned from interviewing resource users? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56, 1949–1963. doi: 10.1139/f99-115
Nie, M. A. (2001). The sociopolitical dimensions of wolf management and restoration in the United States. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 8:12. Available online at: http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her81/81nie.pdf (accessed April 19, 2021).
Nīele (2020). In Nā Puke Wehewehe ‘Ōlelo Hawai‘i. Available online at: https://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.85/cgi-bin/hdict?l=haw (accessed October 15, 2020).
Nyborg, K., Anderies, J. M., Dannenberg, A., Lindahl, T., Schill, C., Schluter, M., et al. (2016). Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8317
O'Bryhim, J. R., and Parsons, E. C. M. (2015). Increased knowledge about sharks increases public concern about their conservation. Mar. Policy 56, 43–47. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.02.007
Oliver, S., Braccini, M., Newman, S. J., and Harvey, E. S. (2015). Global patterns in the bycatch of sharks and rays. Mar. Policy 54, 86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.017
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 15181–15187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702288104
Palsson, G., Szerszynski, B., Sörlin, S., Marks, J., Avril, B., Crumley, C., et al. (2013). Reconceptualizing the “Anthropos” in the Anthropocene: integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environ. Sci. Policy 28, 3–13. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.004
Penney, R., Wilson, G., and Rodwell, L. (2017). Managing sino-ghanaian fishery relations: a political ecology approach. Mar. Policy 79, 46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.02.008
Reddy, S. M. W., Montambault, J., Masuda, Y. J., Keenan, E., Butler, W., Fisher, J. R. B., et al. (2017). Advancing conservation by understanding and influencing human behavior: human behavior and nature. Conserv. Lett. 10, 248–256. doi: 10.1111/conl.12252
Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., et al. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28, 100–109. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., and Taylor, M. J. (2007). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: kalahari rangeland management options. Land Degrad. Dev. 18, 249–268. doi: 10.1002/ldr.777
Rivera, V. S., Cordero, P. M., Rojas, D. C., and O'Riordan, B. (2017). Institutions and collective action in a Costa Rican small-scale fisheries cooperative: the case of CooperTarcoles R. L. Maritime Stud. 16, 1–19. doi: 10.1186/s40152-017-0077-1
Rothman, J., and Olson, M. L. (2011). From interests to identities: towards a new emphasis in interactive conflict resolution. J. Peace Res. 38, 289–305. doi: 10.1177/0022343301038003002
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlamn, B., et al. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 52, 1893–1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Sayce, K., Shuman, C., Connor, D., Reisewitz, A., Pope, E., Miller-Henson, M., et al. (2013). Beyond traditional stakeholder engagement: public participation roles in California's statewide marine protected area planning process. Ocean Coastal Manag. 74, 57–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.06.012
Schuckman, M. (2001). Making the hard choices: a collaborative governance model for the biodiversity context. Washington Univ. Law Q. 79, 343–365. Available online at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol79/iss1/6/ (accessed April 19, 2021).
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shea, K. H., and To, A. W. L. (2017). From boat to bowl: patterns and dynamics of shark fin trade in Hong Kong – implications for monitoring and management. Mar. Policy 81, 330–339. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.04.016
Shiffman, D. S., Macdonald, C., Gan, H. Y., and Hammerschlag, N. (2017). Fishing practices and representations of shark conservation issues among users of a land-based shark angling online forum. Fish. Res. 196, 13–26. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2017.07.031
Silver, J. J., and Campbell, L. M. (2005). Fisher participation in research: dilemmas with the use of fisher knowledge. Ocean Coastal Manag. 48, 721–741. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.06.003
Skogen, K., Mauz, I., and Krange, O. (2008). Cry wolf!: narratives of wolf recovery in France and Norway. Rural Sociol. 73, 105–133. doi: 10.1526/003601108783575916
Søreng, S. U. (2006). Moral discourse in fisheries co-management: a case study of the Senja fishery, northern Norway. Ocean Coastal Manag. 49, 147–163. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.02.008
State of Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources (2019). Regulated Fishing Areas on Hawai‘i Island. Available online at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/fishing/fishing-regulations/regulated-areas/regulated-fishing-areas-on-hawaii/ (accessed March 5, 2019).
Stephenson, R. L., Benson, A. J., Brooks, K., Charles, A., Degnbol, P., Dichmont, C. M., et al. (2017). Practical steps toward integrating economic, social and institutional elements in fisheries policy and management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74, 1981–1989. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsx057
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56, 407–424. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Stevens, J. D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N. K., and Walker, P. A. (2000). The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 476–595. doi: 10.1006/jmsc.2000.0724
St. John, F. A. V., Edwards-Jones, G., and Jones, J. P. G. (2010). Conservation and human behavior: lessons from social psychology. Wildlife Res. 37, 658–667. doi: 10.1071/WR10032
St. Martin, K., and Hall-Arber, M. (2008). Creating a place for “community” in New England fisheries. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 15, 161–170.
Techera, E. J. (2012). Fishing, finning and tourism: trends in Pacific shark conservation and management. Int. J. Mar. Coastal Law 27, 597–621. doi: 10.1163/157180812X645688
Tissot, B. N., Walsh, W. J., and Hixon, M. A. (2009). Hawaiian Islands marine ecosystem case study: ecosystem- and community-based management in Hawai‘i. Coastal Manag. 37, 255–273. doi: 10.1080/08920750902851096
Vaughan, M. B., and Caldwell, M. R. (2015). Hana pa‘a: challenges and lessons for early phases of co-management. Mar. Policy 62, 51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.07.005
Vianna, G. M. S., Meekan, M. G., Pannell, D. J., Marsh, S. P., and Meeuwig, J. J. (2012). Socio-economic value and community benefits from shark-diving tourism in Palau: a sustainable use of reef shark populations. Biol. Conserv. 145, 267–277. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.022
Walker, G., and Daniels, S. (1997). “Foundations of natural resource conflict: Conflict theory and public policy,” in Proceedings: Conflict Management and Public Participation in Land Management, eds B. Solberg, and S. Miina (Joensuu: European Forest Institute), 22.
Watkin, L. J., Kemp, P. S., Willians, I. D., and Harwood, I. A. (2012). Managing sustainable development conflicts: The impact of stakeholders in small-scale hydropower schemes. Environ. Manag. 49, 1208–1223. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9857-y
Webber, A. D., Hill, C. M., and Reynolds, V. (2007). Assessing the failure of a community-based human-wildlife conflict mitigation project in Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Oryx 41, 177–184. doi: 10.1017/S0030605307001792
Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: the case of government paperwork. Policy Sci. 22, 97–121. doi: 10.1007/BF00141381
Wendt, D. E., and Starr, R. M. (2009). Collaborative research: an effective way to collect data for stock assessments and evaluate marine protected areas in California. Mar. Coastal Fish. 1, 315–324. doi: 10.1577/C08-054.1
Young, C. N., Carlson, J., Hutchinson, M., Hutt, C., Kobayashi, D., McCandless, C. T., et al. (2016). Status review report: Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus). Final report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Available online at: https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/PRD/oceanic_whitetip/oceanic-whitetip-status-reviewreport-2016.pdf (accessed April 30, 2019).
Young, N., Corriveau, M., Nguyen, V. M., Cooke, S. J., and Hinch, S. G. (2016). How do potential knowledge users evaluate new claims about a contested resource? Problems of power and politics in knowledge exchange and mobilization. J. Environ. Manag. 184, 380–388. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.006
Keywords: human-wildlife conflict, problem definition, sharks, stakeholder engagement, Hawai‘i
Citation: Iwane MA, Leong KM, Vaughan M and Oleson KLL (2021) When a Shark Is More Than a Shark: A Sociopolitical Problem-Solving Approach to Fisher-Shark Interactions. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2:669105. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.669105
Received: 18 February 2021; Accepted: 06 April 2021;
Published: 07 May 2021.
Edited by:
Vanessa Flora Jaiteh, University of Nottingham, United KingdomReviewed by:
Sabrina Dressel, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SwedenHollie Booth, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2021 Iwane, Leong, Vaughan and Oleson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mia A. Iwane, mia.iwane@noaa.gov