Umeå University's logo

The expansion and intensification of human activities have increased interactions between people and wildlife. Interactions involving bears and other large carnivores are complex and can lead to conflicts. Promoting positive coexistence requires managing information, which is not always available. Our understanding of these interactions is particularly limited in South America, where human activities are rapidly encroaching on carnivore habitats, increasing the potential for conflict.

We addressed this knowledge gap by conducting a systematic review of reported human–Andean bear interactions (HABI) in the English and Spanish peer-reviewed and grey literature. We created a dataset of events and summarized the state of knowledge mapping and characterizing the reported information. To explore the potential to predict interactions, we modelled the association between reported events and environmental and socioeconomic variables.

Our review identified 96 documents reporting 1110 HABI events across all five countries where Andean bears occur, but only covering 184 political units, approximately 11% of their distribution range. Most documents (83%) reported events communicated by people, rather than directly observed or field-inspected interactions. Half of the documents were grey literature published in Spanish. The most common events reported were interactions with domestic animals and crops (reported in 121 units) and hunting of bears by humans (84 units) with very rare reports of attacks or collisions with vehicles (three units). How much information was provided for reported events varied widely and around two-thirds of events did not provide key information including specific locations and dates. Guidance for HABI management was also inconsistent. We located 17 conservation plans offering various mitigation actions but limited evidence of their effectiveness. Reported HABI events were only weakly associated with tested environmental and socioeconomic variables.

Our study reveals a large focus on negative HABI across South America, and also a lack of key details that limits our ability to understand and anticipate potential interactions and conflicts. Information was very limited or not available for several regions and types of interactions. Improving our understanding of human–Andean bear interactions requires a broader scope with more consistent and standardized event reporting to best support effective coexistence and conservation.