Research

INTRODUCTION

Multiple valid perspectives exist in human–wildlife conflicts, and improving the collective understanding among those who hold these diverse perspectives can improve conservation outcomes (Knight et al. 2019). Human–wildlife conflicts may result when actions by people and wildlife have an adverse effect on the other, especially when wildlife causes threats (actual or perceived) to human life, well-being, economic security, or recreation (Nyhus 2016). Adverse effects on wildlife may include injuries, loss of life, and indirectly, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem changes—e.g., farmers may deliberately kill Vulnerable African lions (Panthera leo) following livestock depredation (Ogada et al. 2003). Managing these conflicts can create a subtly different “conservation conflict” between those focused on conserving wildlife and those focused on safeguarding human activities, especially livelihoods (Redpath et al. 2015). For example, changes in land-use permissions to protect Critically Endangered mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) resulted in conflict between Ugandan villagers and protected-areas staff (Baker et al. 2012). Although conservationists have often focused on wildlife and sought technical solutions to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts (Dickman 2010), such approaches alone have proven insufficient. Over the past two decades, there has been growing recognition that meaningful progress requires grappling with the social, cultural, historical, political, economic, and legal dimensions of the conflict (Madden 2004, Pooley et al. 2017).

Despite this broader recognition, traditional conservation efforts often fall short when practitioners fail to engage meaningfully with the human dimensions of human–wildlife conflicts. As a result, well-intentioned conservation recommendations may go unimplemented, contributing to the so-called research–implementation gap (Knight et al. 2008). An operational model to increase the likelihood of implementing conservation recommendations suggests creating social learning platforms for stakeholders to engage with the issue and empower relevant partners (Knight et al. 2006). Toomey et al. (2017) assert that conservation scientists should reconceptualize the “gap” as a productive working “space” by changing how they relate with society regarding conservation problems and embed themselves into collaborative social and decision-making processes because conservation is a social process that engages science, not a scientific process that engages society.

By definition, human–wildlife conflicts are social-ecological systems, so applying systems thinking is useful. Systems thinking is a tool for devising change and investigates the relationships among a system’s elements (Reynolds and Holwell 2010, Arnold and Wade 2015). Recognizing pluralism, a diversity of views or standpoints, is vital for systems thinking and, within conservation conflicts, attending to the diverse perspectives of those involved is key to resolving the conflicts (Reynolds and Holwell 2010, Knight et al. 2019).

Most human–wildlife conflicts are terrestrial, but conflicts also occur in marine spaces. As on land, conflicts in the ocean can be classified as threats to resources or to public safety (Guerra 2019). For example, in the Baltic Sea, fishers and seals compete for resources because they consume similar fish species; some fishers believe that growing populations of predators impact fish stocks so are calling for culling programs (Hansson et al. 2018). The conflict becomes more intense when marine wildlife remove fish from fishing gear—resulting in economic losses and damage to fishing gear for fishers, and entanglement injuries, bycatch (incidental catches), or retaliatory killing of marine megafauna (Tixier et al. 2021).

Humans have a particularly complicated relationship with large carnivores, and this is especially true for large sharks: humans and sharks can be one another’s predators, prey, and competitors (Simpfendorfer et al. 2021). The bites of three shark species—white (Carcharodon carcharias), bull (Carcharhinus leucas), and tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier)—can pose serious risk to humans because they may cause significant injury or death (Midway et al. 2019). Although the risk is extremely low, shark bites are extremely traumatic—not only for the victim, but also for the wider community. These events typically attract media and public attention that can cause a ripple effect on tourism, impacting people’s livelihoods (Oelofse 2006, Sabatier and Huveneers 2018). Due to public concerns and the potential risk to public safety, in some places, authorities have implemented shark control programs, setting fishing gear to catch potentially dangerous sharks. In four shark-bite hotspots (two Australian states, Reunion Island, and one South African province), large-mesh gillnets and/or baited hooks are set to reduce the numbers of these three target sharks (Dudley 1997, Guyomard et al. 2019, McPhee et al. 2021). In theory, lethal control of sharks might reduce the risk to bathers, but in practice, this has been difficult to prove (Huveneers et al. 2024). Although the research on this human–wildlife conflict has traditionally focused on sharks, researchers have begun to investigate the human dimensions (Crossley et al. 2014, Hardiman et al. 2019, Lucrezi et al. 2019) and assess social and ecological layers of the conflict more holistically (Gibbs et al. 2020, Shabtay et al. 2020).

In KwaZulu-Natal, a South African hotspot, there was a series of shark bites, with 21 incidents during the 1940s (2.3 incidents/year), including seven fatalities (0.7 fatalities/year; Cliff and Dudley 1992). The community reached a tipping point and demanded the authorities intervene. Copying Australia’s strategy, Durban’s municipality deployed “shark nets” in 1952, and since then, no serious incidents have occurred (Dudley 1997, KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board 2022). By the 1990s, there were 44 km of gillnets fishing at 40 beaches in KwaZulu-Natal, and they caught 120 target sharks annually, along with 1,600 animals caught incidentally, including non-target sharks, cetaceans, turtles, and rays; 70% of these died (Cliff and Dudley 2011, Plön et al. 2020). Various measures have been taken to reduce the ecological impact, and now 85 target sharks are caught annually, with 480 incidental catches, in 13 km of shark nets and 177 baited hooks fishing at 37 beaches (Fig. 1; Cliff and Dudley 2011; https://shark.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/RMD-Website-catches-2018-2022.docx).

One of the beaches, Richards Bay (Fig. 1), has a high bycatch of humpback dolphins (Sousa plumbea) in the shark nets, indicating that this gear impacts Endangered dolphins as well as sharks, suggesting changes are required to mitigate mortality (Atkins et al. 2013, 2016, Braulik et al. 2023). This presented an opportunity to engage other stakeholders in the research–implementation space. Thus, a stakeholder analysis was conducted to identify those whose work intersects with various aspects of KwaZulu-Natal's bather–shark conflict; these stakeholders and their network were characterized, and their perceptions of the obstacles and opportunities to change this conflict were investigated (Atkins et al. 2023, 2024). To improve the likelihood of reducing this human–wildlife conflict, here we embed conservation science within social and decision processes.

We created a social learning platform so that diverse stakeholders in KwaZulu-Natal’s bather–shark conflict could share their perspectives with one another and collaboratively design a way forward. Specifically, we investigate who would use the platform and why, how they would benefit from it, and which recommendations they might offer to reduce the bather–shark conflict following exposure to the perspectives of other stakeholders in this social-ecological system. We demonstrate the use of a social learning process by hosting a knowledge café to engage these stakeholders and encourage them to mutually develop their views of leveraging change that prevents shark mortalities without impacting bathers.

METHODS

Philosophical principles

The philosophical principles and theoretical assumptions of scientists can affect the design, execution, and interpretation of research and therefore should be reported (Moon et al. 2016). We used Moon and Blackman’s (2014) guide to describe our principles. Our ontology was structural realism because we posit that one reality exists but how it is defined, measured, etc., makes it elusive. Our epistemology was constructionism because conservation is a social issue, with values and culture influencing interpretation, and therefore meaning is constructed from the interplay between subject and object. Our theoretical perspective was participatory, as we were deliberate participants in the process.

Identifying stakeholders

Stakeholders were identified in Stage One of the project (Atkins et al. 2023) using a combination of key-informant and purposive sampling (Bernard 2017), starting with the staff at the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board and the municipal Beach Manager at our focal beach, Richards Bay. We identified stakeholders who managed, sought to understand, and/or mitigate some aspect of the bather–shark conflict in their professional capacity. These are people who work in various parts of this social-ecological system and belong to the organizations that are most likely to initiate and/or implement any changes. We tried to sample a range of roles within each organization’s hierarchy. Our final sample comprised 29 respondents whom we interviewed to investigate their perspectives of KwaZulu-Natal’s bather–shark conflict (Atkins et al. 2023, 2024).

In Stage Two, we invited these 29 respondents to a stakeholder engagement—and invited another 15 stakeholders for three reasons: staff had changed, some stakeholders requested invitations for colleagues, and we became aware of other stakeholders, e.g., a social and a shark scientist, a new student, and a fine artist intrigued by the bather–shark conflict (Fig. 2). In total, we invited 44 people. The research was approved by the University of the Witwatersrand’s Human Research Ethics Committee (Non-medical; Clearance Certificate H18/09/01).

The stakeholder engagement/social learning platform

A social learning platform is defined here as an opportunity for social learning, which is “learning as a process of iterative reflection that occurs when we share our experiences, ideas and environments with others” (Armitage et al. 2008:88). This social learning platform took the form of a knowledge café in which a topic of mutual interest is discussed in several rounds in small groups, whose composition changes periodically (Steier and Brown 2015, Löhr et al. 2020). At knowledge cafés, the topic is introduced, a question or subtopic is posed, and the group splits into several smaller, break-away groups for discussion. Periodically, group membership changes and new questions or subtopics are discussed. The larger group is reconvened and insights are shared with everyone. The knowledge café format was chosen because it encourages cross-pollination of ideas, fosters collaborative learning, builds relationships, and allows participants to share information in an equitable, non-threatening manner (Fouché and Light 2011, Singh 2017). Like focus groups, it is a discursive method that facilitates dialog to gather and share knowledge, although the knowledge café allows more people to participate, with more participation among them (Löhr et al. 2020). In addition, power imbalances among participants may be diminished by the frequent changes in group membership (Löhr et al. 2020).

The knowledge café took place online (using Zoom Video Communications Inc. 2016) on 1 March 2022, 09:00–13:00 h. Professional facilitators hosted the meeting and created a “thinking environment” (Kline 1999), emphasizing the principles of attention, equality, ease, and appreciation. We held discussions in three rounds (Fig. 3). Each round comprised 25 min. of discussion in four smaller groups (six to eight participants), followed by a brief opportunity for individual reflection (see “chatterfall” below), followed by 15 min. of feedback from smaller group representatives to the large group. This feedback was recorded with participants’ permission.

Data sources and analysis

Individual reflections were solicited by the facilitator using “chatterfall”: participants were given a short time to type their perspectives into the “chat” function and then everyone simultaneously pressed “enter” to share their thoughts. Chatterfall was collected to investigate participants’ motivation to use the social learning platform and perceived benefits. At the meeting’s start, the facilitator asked, “Why did you say yes to being part of today’s conversation? Why does being here matter to you?“ At the meeting’s end, the facilitator asked, “What did you appreciate the most about our time together today?” Multiple data sources were used to investigate the suggested next steps. During the last round of the knowledge café, the question was “How do we move forward? What are the next steps?“ During the smaller-group discussions, participants captured notes in real time using a shared online word-processor. Following the discussion, the facilitator solicited chatterfall, asking “My top recommendation as a next step or action is...“ Finally, a representative from each smaller group presented a verbal summary of their discussions. The recording (and its transcription) of these presentations constituted the main data source, supplemented by the notes and chatterfall.

The qualitative data captured in the recording, notes, and chatterfall were analyzed manually. We analyzed what was said, without trying to interpret the underlying meaning (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). One of us (SA) coded the data, reviewing the process and results with others (JML and SL). We used an inductive approach, creating codes directly from the data, using different coding approaches for each question to best reflect the nature of the responses, as described in Saldaña (2013). For question 2 (motivation), we first used process coding, which captures participants’ actions and intentions using gerunds, to identify the essence of the responses and then used pattern coding to identify similarly coded data and group them into broader categories. For question 3 (benefits), we first used in vivo coding, which uses participants’ own words as codes to preserve their voices and expressions, followed by pattern coding to group codes into shared themes. For question 4 (next steps), a single coding cycle sufficed. We themed the discussions, capturing the meaning as an extended thematic statement, i.e., the participants’ discussion points, which were communicated in multiple sentences, were contracted and expressed as an action. Code lists are in Append. 1. We did not report any quantitative metrics because ideas expressed by a single participant were considered as valuable as those expressed by many.

RESULTS

Who attended?

Forty-four people from 22 organizations were invited, and 29 people from 17 organizations attended. Table 1 shows the organizations, their stakes in the conflict, and their attendance. Attendees represented (1) the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board, which manages the bather protection operation; (2) three levels of government—local, provincial and national; (3) Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (provincial conservation entity); (4) three non-governmental organizations (NGOs); (5) academics; (6) others. Invited organizations that did not attend included the South African National Biodiversity Institute, Tourism KwaZulu-Natal, one NGO, and the City of Cape Town, which reduces shark risks non lethally. Invitees who were interviewed in Stage One but did not attend this meeting were more senior government representatives, e.g., departmental directors and heads (although some sent representatives). Only one of six invitees from the municipality attended, although it was a senior representative (acting Deputy Municipal Manager). Where reasons for not attending were offered, they included: reluctance to engage in potentially controversial discussions; higher priorities; ill health; technical difficulties with the online program.

What motivated them to attend?

Sixteen respondents offered five types of motivation for attending: (1) the drive to explore options to manage the human–wildlife conflict; (2) the need for change in managing the human–wildlife conflict; (3) the desire to make a difference; (4) an interest in the subject, which varied from general curiosity to a broad interest in human–wildlife interactions to a deep, long-lived interest in KwaZulu-Natal’s bather–shark conflict; and (5) the desire to defend wildlife (quotes in Append. 1).

How did they benefit?

Eighteen respondents saw benefit in various aspects of the meeting. They particularly appreciated the people: how many people are invested in seeking solutions, being connected to like-minded people, and the extent of their combined knowledge. Some appreciated hearing diverse views. Others appreciated the willingness within the group—to work together, to learn, and for change. Some appreciated the discussions, which were described as constructive and level headed. Others appreciated the opportunity to contribute. Additional aspects included: the identification of actionable opportunities; the progress made; the passion; and the knowledge gained (quotes in Append. 1).

What are the potential next steps?

Participants proposed ten potential steps to accelerate change to conserve sharks without compromising bathers in KwaZulu-Natal (Table 2). These ten suggestions were grouped into three themes: collaborate, reuse existing knowledge and structures, and weigh up the costs and benefits (Fig. 4). Note that these suggestions are not prescriptive or binding but are actions that various organizations might undertake together in various combinations. Not everyone necessarily agreed with every suggestion, but these are the collective ideas of the participants, whose combined experience is considerable. There was no discussion regarding sequence. At the meeting’s conclusion, 14 attendees from 12 organizations volunteered to initiate a working group to begin taking these next steps. Most were natural scientists, and there were representatives from the provincial and national governments.

DISCUSSION

A variety of stakeholders whose work intersected with the controversial bather–shark conflict, representing a diversity of institutions, were invited to a knowledge café. The aim was to create a social learning platform to improve our mutual understanding and consider improving the conservation status for sharks while still protecting people in KwaZulu-Natal. Two-thirds of the invitees attended, representing 77% of the invited organizations, indicating high levels of interest. Exchanges among stakeholders were constructive, and participants remained open minded—they welcomed the opportunity to engage others and to hear diverse views. They admired the willingness of the community to work together and were more forward focused than retrospective. Broadly, they proposed collaborating, using what exists, and weighing up costs/benefits (Fig. 4). Ultimately, half the participants volunteered to form a working group.

We made a start to transdisciplinary learning

Although not specifically designed so, the social learning platform was actually a transdisciplinary learning platform as the stakeholders came from diverse institutions (e.g., governmental, non-governmental, academic) and had backgrounds across scientific and societal bodies of knowledge, including science, policy, and practice (Lang et al. 2012). These stakeholders started reconciling multiple perspectives, co-evolving their understanding of this social-ecological issue, and co-producing knowledge to create systemic change—all key transdisciplinary learning activities (Roux et al. 2017). We tapped into the knowledge (explicit and tacit) of stakeholders who understand different parts of this human–wildlife system to co-produce knowledge, which is defined as “the collaborative process of bringing a plurality of knowledge sources and types together to address a defined problem and build a systems-oriented understanding of that problem” (Armitage et al. 2011:996).

Considering the proposed next steps

Collaborate: mobilize diverse expertise and leadership

1. Initiate a working group

Participants suggested initiating an expert panel or working group to support reducing the ecological impact of KwaZulu-Natal’s bather–shark conflict. Because such conflicts will not be solved by fact-based, expert-driven approaches alone (Simpfendorfer et al. 2021, Toomey 2023), and groups selected for their diversity can outperform groups of the best problem solvers (Hong and Page 2004), this working group should be transdisciplinary and purposefully incorporate the multiple perspectives—a strategy that helps to achieve adaptability and inclusivity, key principles of transformative ocean governance (Strand et al. 2022).

2. Communicate with decision makers

Throughout the knowledge café, communication with the public was discussed frequently. However, regarding the next steps, communication with decision makers was prioritized. The human–shark conflict is complex, and decision makers must trade off social, political, economic, and ecological risks (Game et al. 2014, Hamman et al. 2016). Perceptions of risks influence decision making, and the risk of shark bites is invariably overestimated (Reynolds 2011, Crossley et al. 2014). Politically, biodiversity conservation is rarely prioritized, especially in countries with deep inequality and rising socio-economic needs (Kinzig and McShane 2015, Rose et al. 2018). Therefore, effective engagement with decision makers will require constructive engagement with differing values, perceptions, and politics; and reciprocal knowledge sharing is imperative going forward (Roux et al. 2006, Toomey et al. 2017, Infield et al. 2018).

3. Identify a champion

A participant noted that, in Cape Town, the policy of using only non-lethal bather protection was driven by a “champion” within the municipality. This champion convened a multidisciplinary specialist workshop to rationally assess shark-bite mitigation, shark conservation, recreational trends, emergency responses, governance, and communication (Nel and Peschak 2006). Generally, participatory processes are more likely to be accepted and implemented when initiated by government bodies, and champions in local government can positively affect the mainstreaming of environmental issues (Pasquini et al. 2015, De Vente et al. 2016). In our case, champions should be sought within the Sharks Board, among the municipalities, and/or provincial departments.

Re-use: utilize existing knowledge and structures

4. Collate and share existing information

The discussion suggested that much useful, empirical data already exist to support decision making but are not readily available. Therefore, participants suggested collating existing local, national, and international research and making it accessible to decision makers. A question of primary importance is: what are the differences between KwaZulu-Natal and other South African provinces that do not use lethal methods? When applying any of these national and international lessons, the unique, local context must be considered—a point raised by the participants (Step 7. Conduct beach-specific cost:benefit analyses) and within the human–wildlife conflict literature (Madden 2004).

5. Leverage existing legislation

Concern was expressed about lethal shark control inside Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). These areas are already valued for their high biodiversity, making a good starting point to elicit change. Currently, seven installations of shark nets and baited hooks are inside MPAs: Zinkwazi and Blythedale in uThukela MPA; Karridene, Umgababa, and Scottburgh in Aliwal Shoal MPA; and San Lameer and Trafalgar Beach in Trafalgar MPA (Fig. 1; CoastKZN https://maps.coastkzn.co.za/CoastKZN). A participant highlighted the high shark catch rate at Zinkwazi (Dudley and Cliff 2010); changes there would maximize the conservation return. Trafalgar is also a Blue Flag Beach, which yields additional opportunities (see step 6).

6. Tap into existing programs

The Blue Flag Beaches Program is an international certification system awarded to beaches with high environmental, educational, safety, and accessibility standards (Lucrezi et al. 2015). The Blue Flag implementation agent in South Africa, Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA), who participated in the knowledge café, offered the Blue Flag platform to conduct research, test innovations, and communicate with mutual stakeholders. Suggestions included: (1) investigate beach users’ perceptions of human–shark interactions; (2) pilot changes at Blue Flag beaches and run concurrent social media campaigns to monitor people’s reactions; (3) engage beach managers at Blue Flag workshops; and (4) use Blue Flag’s progressive environmental management requirements to incentivize municipal decision making to test and/or adopt alternative strategies.

7. Align with governmental frameworks

This governance recommendation demonstrates the value of scientists and non-scientists learning together when trying to leverage change. Many types of conservation actions are fundamentally policy processes and require support/actions by government actors (Game et al. 2015). Explicitly linking the process of seeking solutions to existing government structures, policies, and/or strategies increases the salience and relevance to the government, likely facilitating their participation in the process and uptake of any recommendations. Participants noted the Shark Biodiversity Management Plan, which includes objectives of reducing shark catches and finding non-lethal methods to protect bathers. Aligning with provincial and municipal frameworks may also be prudent.

Weigh up: consider costs and benefits

8. Conduct site-specific cost:benefit analyses

According to the municipality representative, the financial cost of bather protection is high, yet no one has analyzed the costs vs. benefits. Each beach has unique ecological, physical, and social characteristics. Transdisciplinary teams that include beach managers (and MPA managers) should assess the economic and environmental costs vs. economic and social benefits of using lethal fishing gear. Beach-specific assessments could include the presence and behavior of target sharks, bathers, tourists, and bycatch, and local environmental conditions. Beach-specific assessments should also include the attitudes of bathers to human–shark interactions (e.g., Lucrezi and Gennari 2021, Sheridan et al. 2021), and those of lifeguards and local communities because intangible costs and benefits impact wildlife tolerance (Kansky et al. 2016). Niella et al. (2021) included some of these elements when assessing how changes to shark control may impact sharks and humans.

9. Evaluate multiple alternative strategies

Alternative methods to detect and deter sharks exist, although none is a silver bullet (McPhee et al. 2021). For example, the electrical shark repellent cable, a physiological shark deterrent, has been developed by the Sharks Board and described as “a non-lethal solution to the use of nets and drums, which are designed to catch and kill sharks” (KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board 2021:54). Other alternatives include Shark Spotters (Engelbrecht et al. 2017) and technologies like the SharkSafe Barrier® (O’Connell et al. 2014) and drones (Colefax et al. 2020). However, all KwaZulu-Natal’s shark-managed beaches are exposed to high-energy surf and have turbid waters (Dudley 1997), characteristics that make it difficult—logistically and financially—to use these alternatives. A new, innovative method is the SMART drumline, which enables a quick response to catches and relocation of target sharks (Guyomard et al. 2019, Butcher et al. 2023). Use of this expensive method reflects an increasing reluctance to harm marine megafauna. To date, none of these methods have been tested in KwaZulu-Natal. To identify options worth trying, transdisciplinary teams could assess the feasibility of each alternative against beach-specific circumstances, using processes like the participatory multi-criteria decision analysis (Marino et al. 2021). Multi-pronged approaches are generally recommended for human–wildlife conflicts (Madden 2004) and specifically for the bather–shark conflict (Huveneers et al. 2024). Non-technical strategies like education and community engagement were included as alternative strategies to reduce this conflict (Kock et al. 2012, Marchini et al. 2021, Simpfendorfer et al. 2021, Consorte-McCrea et al. 2022).

10. Consider funding options

The bather-protection program costs are borne by the provincial and local government (KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board’s Annual Reports). The funding for the steps proposed here should be sourced elsewhere. Suggestions included international conservation benefactors and/or the tourism industry. Madden (2004) recommends tying funding to the conflict, rather than a place or species, and encourages support for multidisciplinary, multi-pronged programs.

Usually, when human–wildlife conflicts are driven by wildlife impacts (rather than, e.g., resource use, environmental change, etc.), recommendations and responses involve technical interventions, not stakeholder interventions (Baynham-Herd et al. 2018). For example, in the shark-bite hotspot in New South Wales, the government commissioned a study to test and develop technological alternatives to lethal fishing gear (McPhee et al. 2021, Huveneers et al. 2024), although they followed up with a study of community perceptions (Martin et al. 2022). In another hotspot, Cape Town, South Africa, the local and national government organized an expert workshop to examine mitigation options (Nel and Peschak 2006). At that social learning platform, experts presented 15 papers on various aspects of the bather–shark system; recommendations resulted in the formalization of the Shark Spotter program.

Transdisciplinary social learning platforms like ours have recently been used to reduce conflicts with large carnivores, i.e., conducted with multi-stakeholder groups including government, NGOs, academics, and interest groups (Marchini et al. 2021, Salvatori et al. 2021). The recommendations resulting from these platforms, and ours, can be applied to human–wildlife conflicts elsewhere. However, to improve the chances of implementation of conservation action, it is the participatory process—the interactions among stakeholders—that is most valuable and likely to result in balanced, feasible human-safety and biodiversity-conservation goals. We recommend transdisciplinary learning platforms engaging stakeholders who drive and implement changes, as useful tools in conservationists’ toolboxes to manage human–wildlife conflict more sustainably.

Limitations and future directions

During the preceding stage of the research, when we interviewed the same stakeholders individually, some differentiated between their personal views and their public/organizational views. On a public platform like this knowledge café, they likely shared only their public perspectives. Also, this study was designed with the research–implementation space in mind and focused on stakeholders whose work intersects with the bather–shark conflict, but the perspectives of bathers, fishers, and local businesses are also important. Future research should include them and follow König et al.’s (2021) methods, and establish similar dialogs internationally to conduct a cross-case analysis comparing strategies used in other human–wildlife conflict hotspots.

CONCLUSION

As scientists, we approached this research–implementation space by embedding ourselves within society and positioning our science to overlap with local knowledge and decision making (Toomey et al. 2017). We connected stakeholders and exposed them to the variety of perspectives that we had become aware of while studying KwaZulu-Natal’s bather–shark conflict. The stakeholders used our social learning platform to explore options to reduce the conflict and to contribute to the change that is required. They valued the opportunity to hear the diversity of views and to connect with others who were invested in seeking solutions to protect both sharks and people. Perhaps this shifted perceptions of the social norm, which is more likely to yield optimal conservation decision making than simply providing facts (Toomey 2023).

Strengthening the social connections among the stakeholders in this social-ecological system may change the flow of information and ideas—a powerful lever to change a system (Abson et al. 2016). We hope that by improving the transdisciplinary links between various types of knowledge, socio-political conditions, and governance at multiple scales (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2015), we have developed an effective strategy while garnering support for its implementation to improve the situation for sharks without compromising people’s well-being.

The proposed next steps constitute possible actions and interactions that this community of organizations should consider, providing a foundational framework for collaborative efforts to address pressing social-ecological challenges. The diverse, transdisciplinary recommendations reflect the complexity of the problem, satisfying Ostrom’s (2007) sage call to move beyond panaceas. These recommendations could be adopted in other human–wildlife conflicts because collaborations among those who are most interested and most influential will always be useful. Using existing resources before creating new ones is a sensible strategy for resource-poor countries where human–wildlife conflicts are on the rise (Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay 2016). Assessing the characteristics of each unique, local context and a variety of alternative solutions is a good way to recognize the pluralism that is inherent in every conflict.

LITERATURE CITED

Abson, D. J., J. Fischer, J. Leventon, J. Newig, T. Schomerus, U. Vilsmaier, H. von Wehrden, P. Abernethy, C. D. Ives, N. W. Jager, and D. J. Lang. 2016. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46(1):30-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18(1):86-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002

Armitage, D., F. Berkes, A. Dale, E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E. Patton. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change 21(3):995-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006

Arnold, R. D., and J. P. Wade. 2015. A definition of systems thinking: a systems approach. Procedia Computer Science 44:669-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050

Atkins, S., G. Cliff, and N. Pillay. 2013. Humpback dolphin bycatch in the shark nets in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Biological Conservation 159:442-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.007

Atkins, S., M. Cantor, N. Pillay, G. Cliff, M. Keith, and G. J. Parra. 2016. Net loss of endangered humpback dolphins: integrating residency, site fidelity, and bycatch in shark nets. Marine Ecology Progress Series 555:249-260. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11835

Atkins, S., J. Mann-Lang, G. Cliff, N. Pillay, and M. Cantor. 2023. Stakeholder perceptions reveal obstacles and opportunities to change lethal methods of protecting bathers from sharks. Marine Policy 155:105762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105762

Atkins, S., J. Mann-Lang, G. Cliff, N. Pillay, and M. Cantor. 2024. Articulating the dynamics among stakeholders in KwaZulu-Natal’s bather–shark conflict to create a productive research-implementation space. Ocean and Coastal Management 255:107244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107244

Baker, J., E. J. Milner-Gulland, and N. Leader-Williams. 2012. Park gazettement and integrated conservation and development as factors in community conflict at Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. Conservation Biology 26(1):160-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01777.x

Baynham-Herd, Z., S. Redpath, N. Bunnefeld, T. Molony, and A. Keane. 2018. Conservation conflicts: behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations. Biological Conservation 222:180-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.012

Bernard, H. R. 2017. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, USA.

Braulik, G. T., A. Natoli, D. Sutaria, and E. Vermeulen. 2023. Sousa plumbea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2023: e.T82031633A230253271. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2023-1.RLTS.T82031633A230253271.en

Butcher, P. A., K. A. Lee, C. P. Brand, C. R. Gallen, M. Green, A. F. Smoothey, and V. M. Peddemors. 2023. Capture response and long-term fate of white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) after release from SMART drumlines. Biology 12(10):1329. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12101329

Cliff, G., and S. F. J. Dudley. 1992. Protection against shark attack in South Africa, 1952–90. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43:263-272. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9920263

Cliff, G., and S. F. J. Dudley. 2011. Reducing the environmental impact of shark-control programs: a case study from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research 62(6):700-709. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF10182

Colefax, A. P., P. A. Butcher, D. E. Pagendam, and B. P. Kelaher. 2020. Comparing distributions of white, bull, and tiger sharks near and away from the surf break using three tech-based methods. Ocean and Coastal Management 198:105366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105366

Consorte-McCrea, A., S. Kolipaka, J. R. Owens, C. R. Ruiz-Miranda, and S. Waters. 2022. Guidelines to facilitate human–wildlife interactions in conservation translocations. Frontiers in Conservation Science 3:788520. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2022.788520

Crossley, R., C. M. Collins, S. G. Sutton, and C. Huveneers. 2014. Public perception and understanding of shark attack mitigation measures in Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 19(2):154-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2014.844289

De Vente, J., M. S. Reed, L. C. Stringer, S. Valente, and J. Newig. 2016. How does the context and design of participatory decision making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global droughts. Ecology and Society 21(2):24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08053-210224

Dickman, A. J., 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13(5):458-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x

Dudley, S. F. J. 1997. A comparison of the shark control programs of New South Wales and Queensland (Australia) and KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa). Ocean and Coastal Management 34:1-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(96)00061-0

Dudley, S. F., and G. Cliff. 2010. Influence of the annual sardine run on catches of large sharks in the protective gillnets off KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and the occurrence of sardine in shark diet. African Journal of Marine Science 32(2):383-397. https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2010.502641

Engelbrecht, T., A. Kock, S. Waries, and M. J. O’Riain. 2017. Shark spotters: successfully reducing spatial overlap between white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) and recreational water users in False Bay, South Africa. PLOS One 12(9):e0185335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185335

Fouché, C., and G. Light. 2011. An invitation to dialogue: “The World Café” in social work research. Qualitative Social Work 10(1):28-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010376016

Game, E. T., E. Meijaard, D. Sheil, and E. McDonald-Madden. 2014. Conservation in a wicked complex world; challenges and solutions. Conservation Letters 7(3):271-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12050

Game, E. T., M. W. Schwartz, and A. T. Knight. 2015. Policy relevant conservation science. Conservation Letters 8(5):309-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12207

Gibbs, L., L. Fetterplace, M. Rees, and Q. Hanich. 2020. Effects and effectiveness of lethal shark hazard management: the shark meshing (bather protection) program, NSW, Australia. People and Nature 2(1):189-203. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10063

Graneheim, U. H., and B. Lundman. 2004. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24(2):105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Guerra, A. S. 2019. Wolves of the sea: managing human–wildlife conflict in an increasingly tense ocean. Marine Policy 99:369-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.002

Guyomard, D., C. Perry, P. Ugo, G. Cliff, and V. Peddemors. 2019. An innovative fishing gear to enhance the release of non-target species in coastal shark-control programs: the SMART (shark management alert in real-time) drumline. Fisheries Research 216:6-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2019.03.011

Hamman, E., K. Woolaston, and B. Lewis. 2016. Legal responses to human–wildlife conflict. IUCN Academy of Environmental Law eJournal 7:57-83.

Hansson, S., U. Bergström, E. Bonsdorff, T. Härkönen, N. Jepsen, L. Kautsky, K. Lundström, S.G. Lunneryd, M. Ovegård, J. Salmi, D. Sendek, and M. Vetemaa. 2018. Competition for the fish—fish extraction from the Baltic Sea by humans, aquatic mammals, and birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science 75(3):999-1008. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx207

Hardiman, N., S. Burgin, and J. Shao. 2019. News media portrayal of attributed stakeholder attitudes to shark management in Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 24(6):548-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2019.1663455

Hong, L., and S. E. Page. 2004. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(46):16385-16389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403723101

Huveneers, C., C. Blount, C. J. A. Bradshaw, P. A. Butcher, M. P. Lincoln Smith, W. G. Macbeth, D. P. McPhee, N. Moltschaniwskyj, V. M. Peddemors, and M. Green. 2024. Shifts in the incidence of shark bites and efficacy of beach-focussed mitigation in Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 198:115855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115855

Infield, M., A. Entwistle, H. Anthem, A. Mugisha, and K. Phillips. 2018. Reflections on cultural values approaches to conservation: lessons from 20 years of implementation. Oryx 52(2):220-230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317000928

Kansky, R., M. Kidd, and A. T. Knight. 2016. A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation 201:137-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.002

Kinzig, A. P., and T. O. McShane. 2015. Conservation in Africa: exploring the impact of social, economic and political drivers on conservation outcomes. Environmental Research Letters 10(9):090201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/090201

Kline, N. 1999. Time to think: listening to ignite the human mind. Cassell Illustrated, London, UK.

Knight, A. T., C. N. Cook, K. H. Redford, D. Biggs, C. Romero, A. Ortega-Argueta, C. D. Norman, B. Parsons, M. Reynolds, G. Eoyang, and M. Keene. 2019. Improving conservation practice with principles and tools from systems thinking and evaluation. Sustainability Science 14(6):1531-1548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00676-x

Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, and B. M. Campbell. 2006. An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology 20(2):408-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00305.x

Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, M. Rouget, A. Balmford, A. T. Lombard, and B. M. Campbell. 2008. Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22(3):610-617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00914.x

Kock, A. A., S. Titley, W. Petersen, M. Sikweyiya, S. Tsotsobe, D. Colenbrander, H. Gold, and G. Oelofse. 2012. Shark spotters: a pioneering shark safety program in Cape Town, South Africa. Pages 447-466 in M. L. Domeier, editor. Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the white shark. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

König, H. J., S. Ceauşu, M. Reed, H. Kendall, K. Hemminger, H. Reinke, E. Ostermann-Miyashita, E. Wenz, L. Eufemia, T. Hermanns, M. Kloses, M. Spyra, T. Kuemmerle, and A. T. Ford. 2021. Integrated framework for stakeholder participation: methods and tools for identifying and addressing human–wildlife conflicts. Conservation Science and Practice 3(3):e399. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.399

KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board. 2021. Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2021. https://provincialgovernment.co.za/entity_annual/716/2021-kwazulu-natal-kwazulu-natal-sharks-board-maritime-centre-of-excellence-annual-report.pdf

KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board. 2022. Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2022. https://provincialgovernment.co.za/entity_annual/801/2022-kwazulu-natal-kwazulu-natal-sharks-board-maritime-centre-of-excellence-annual-report.pdf

Lang, D. J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling, and C. J. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7(S1):25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Löhr, K., M. Weinhardt, and S. Sieber. 2020. The “World Café” as a participatory method for collecting qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19:1609406920916976. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920916976

Lucrezi, S., M. Saayman, and P. Van der Merwe. 2015. Managing beaches and beachgoers: lessons from and for the Blue Flag award. Tourism Management 48:211-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.11.010

Lucrezi, S., S. Ellis, and E. Gennari. 2019. A test of causative and moderator effects in human perceptions of sharks, their control and framing. Marine Policy 109:103687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103687

Lucrezi, S., and E. Gennari. 2021. Perceptions of shark hazard mitigation at beaches implementing lethal and nonlethal shark control programs. Society and Animals 30:1-22. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-BJA10046

Madden, F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9(4):247- 257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505675

Marchini, S., K. M. Ferraz, V. Foster, T. Reginato, A. Kotz, Y. Barros, A. Zimmermann, and D. W. Macdonald. 2021. Planning for human–wildlife coexistence: conceptual framework, workshop process, and a model for transdisciplinary collaboration. Frontiers in Conservation Science 2:752953. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.752953

Marino, A., P. Ciucci, S. M. Redpath, S. Ricci, J. Young, and V. Salvatori. 2021. Broadening the toolset for stakeholder engagement to explore consensus over wolf management. Journal of Environmental Management 296:113125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113125

Martin, C. L., B. Curley, K. Wolfenden, M. Green, and N. A. Moltschaniwskyj. 2022. The social dimension to the New South Wales shark management strategy, 2015–2020, Australia: lessons learned. Marine Policy 141:105079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105079

McPhee, D. P., C. Blount, M. P. Lincoln Smith, and V. M. Peddemors. 2021. A comparison of alternative systems to catch and kill for mitigating unprovoked shark bite on bathers or surfers at ocean beaches. Ocean and Coastal Management 201:105492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105492

Midway, S. R., T. Wagner, and G. H. Burgess. 2019. Trends in global shark attacks. PLOS One 14(2):e0211049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211049

Moon, K., and D. Blackman. 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology 28(5):1167-1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326

Moon, K., T. D. Brewer, S. R. Januchowski-Hartley, V. M. Adams, and D. A. Blackman. 2016. A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecology and Society 21(3):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08663-210317

Nel, D. C., and T. P. Peschak. 2006. Finding a balance: white shark conservation and recreational safety in the inshore waters of Cape Town, South Africa. Proceedings of a specialist workshop. WWF South Africa Report Series. Cape Town. South Africa. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alison-Kock/publication/260383018_Africa's_white_shark_cage-diving_industry_-_is_there_cause_for_concern/links/54fd486e0cf270426d11b0b0/Africas-white-shark-cage-diving-industry-is-there-cause-for-concern.pdf

Niella, Y., V. M. Peddemors, M. Green, A. F. Smoothey, and R. Harcourt. 2021. A “wicked problem” reconciling human–shark conflict, shark bite mitigation, and threatened species. Frontiers in Conservation Science 2:720741 https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.720741

Nyhus, P. J. 2016. Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41:143-171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634

O’Connell, C. P., S. Andreotti, M. Rutzen, M. Meÿer, C. A. Matthee, and P. He. 2014. Effects of the Sharksafe barrier on white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) behavior and its implications for future conservation technologies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 460:37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2014.06.004

Oelofse, G. 2006. Governance and responsibilities: white shark management and recreational safety in the Cape metropole. Pages 32-39 in D. Nel and T. P. Peschak, editors. Finding a balance: white shark conservation and recreational safety in the inshore waters of Cape Town, South Africa. Proceedings of a specialist workshop. WWF South Africa Report Series, Cape Town, South Africa.

Ogada, M. O., R. Woodroffe, N. O. Oguge, and L. G. Frank. 2003. Limiting depredation by African carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Conservation Biology 17(6):1521-1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00061.x

Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(39):15181-15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104

Pasquini, L., G. Ziervogel, R. M. Cowling, and C. Shearing. 2015. What enables local governments to mainstream climate change adaptation? Lessons learned from two municipal case studies in the Western Cape, South Africa. Climate and Development 7(1):60-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.886994

Plön, S., C. Erbe, and S. Wintner. 2020. Long-term demographic and spatio-temporal trends of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) bycatch in bather protection nets off KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:542675. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.542675

Pooley, S., M. Barua, W. Beinart, A. Dickman, G. Holmes, J. Lorimer, A. J. Loveridge, D. W. Macdonald, G. Marvin, S. Redpath, C. Sillero-Zubiri, A. Zimmermann, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2017. An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations. Conservation Biology 31(3):513-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12859

Redpath, S. M., S. Bhatia, and J. Young. 2015. Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 49(2):222-225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000799

Reynolds, B. J. 2011. When the facts are just not enough: credibly communicating about risk is riskier when emotions run high and time is short. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 254(2):206-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2010.10.023

Reynolds, M., and S. Holwell. 2010. Introducing systems approaches. Pages 1-26 in M. Reynolds and S. Holwell, editors. Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-809-4_1

Rose, D. C., W. J. Sutherland, T. Amano, J. P. González-Varo, R. J. Robertson, B. I. Simmons, H. |S. Wauchope, E. Kovacs, A. P. Durán, A. B. M. Vadrot, W. Wu, M. P. Dias, M. M. I. Di Fonzo, S. Ivory, L. Norris, M. H. Nunes, T. Ochieng Nyumba, N. Steiner, J. Vickery, and N. Mukherjee. 2018. The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions. Conservation Letters 11:e12564. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12564

Roux, D. J., K. H. Rogers, H. C. Biggs, P. J. Ashton, and A. Sergeant. 2006. Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11(1):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01643-110104

Roux, D. J., J. L. Nel, G. Cundill, P. O’Farrell, and C. Fabricius. 2017. Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: who to learn with, what to learn about and how to learn. Sustainability Science 12(5):711-726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0446-0

Sabatier, E., and C. Huveneers. 2018. Changes in media portrayal of human–wildlife conflict during successive fatal shark bites. Conservation and Society 16(3):338. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_5

Saldaña, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications, London, UK.

Salvatori, V., E. Balian, J. C. Blanco, X. Carbonell, P., Ciucci, L. Demeter, A. Marino, A. Panzavolta, A. Sólyom, Y. von Korff, and J. C. Young. 2021. Are large carnivores the real issue? Solutions for improving conflict management through stakeholder participation. Sustainability 13(8):4482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084482

Seoraj-Pillai, N., and N. Pillay. 2016. A meta-analysis of human–wildlife conflict: South African and global perspectives. Sustainability 9:34. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010034

Shabtay, A., E. Lagabrielle, V. Plot, G. Potin, and D. Guyomard. 2020. Marine spatial planning provides a comprehensive framework for building evidence-based shark risk management policies with sea-users. Environmental Science and Policy 111:18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.014

Sheridan, K., M. J. O’Riain, and M. D. Needham. 2021. Recreationist perceptions of lethal and non-lethal management of sharks in two of South Africa’s marine areas. Marine Policy 132:104633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104633

Simpfendorfer, C. A., M. R. Heupel, and D. Kendal. 2021. Complex human–shark conflicts confound conservation action. Frontiers in Conservation Science 2:692767. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.692767

Singh, S. 2017. The knowledge café as a research technique. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 15(1):29-40.

Steier, F., and J. Brown. 2015. The world café in action research settings. Pages 211-215 in H. Bradbury, editor. The SAGE handbook of action research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290.n21

Strand, M., K. Ortega-Cisneros, H. J. Niner, M. Wahome, J. Bell, J. C. Currie, H. Hamukuaya, G. La Bianca, A. M. S. N. Lancaster, N. Maseka, L. McDonald, K. McQuaid, M. M. Samuel, and A. Winkler. 2022. Transdisciplinarity in transformative ocean governance research—reflections of early career researchers. ICES Journal of Marine Science 79:2163-2177. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac165

Tixier, P., M. Lea, M. A. Hindell, D. Welsford, C. Mazé, S. Gourguet, and J. P. Y. Arnould. 2021. When large marine predators feed on fisheries catches: global patterns of the depredation conflict and directions for coexistence. Fish and Fisheries 22(1):31-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12504

Toomey, A. H. 2023. Why facts don’t change minds: Insights from cognitive science for the improved communication of conservation research. Biological Conservation 278:109886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109886

Toomey, A. H., A. T. Knight, and J. Barlow. 2017. Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conservation Letters 10(5):619-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12315

van Kerkhoff, L. E., and L. Lebel. 2015. Coproductive capacities: rethinking science–governance relations in a diverse world. Ecology and Society 20(1):14 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07188-200114