The role and origins of human attitudes in Human–Wildlife Conflict responses: Insights from Spectacled Bears (Tremarctos ornatus) and other wild carnivores in Southern Ecuador


Abstract

Background. Human-wildlife conflict, which motivates retaliatory killings, is a major driver of species decline globally. Addressing an open question in human–wildlife conflict, we test whether evolutionary-rooted human attitudes, independent of economic losses, better predict retaliatory responses.
Methods. We examined human attitudes toward spectacled bears (Tremarctos ornatus) and other wild carnivores in a wildlife conflict-zone in southern Ecuador by conducting interviews in rural communities. We measured both established variables - such as education levels, age, and gender - and novel psychometric variables to identify predictors of human-wildlife conflict responses.
Results. Perceptions of animals emerged as the strongest predictor of conflict responses. Communities exhibiting high levels of vengefulness, particularly within an animal-directed Culture of Honor, where individuals, especially men, are expected to respond strongly or violently to perceived threats, were more likely to support lethal interventions. Conversely, individuals with strong environmental education backgrounds demonstrated more positive perceptions of wildlife, highlighting education’s potential role in conflict mitigation. Conclusion. Evolutionary-derived attitudes, rather than economic factors, primarily drive human responses to wildlife conflict. Effective strategies to reduce violence against wildlife should incorporate human perceptions and culturally rooted values to address the underlying social and psychological drivers of conflict.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].