A new international study led by Colorado State University suggests that modern attitudes toward wildlife across the Americas can be traced back to European colonization and the cultural systems established centuries ago. Published in the journal Nature Sustainability, the research highlights major differences between how people in Latin America and North America perceive wild animals.
According to the study, populations in Latin America are more likely to view wildlife as part of the social community, deserving rights and protection similar to humans — a perspective researchers describe as “mutualism.” In contrast, people in the United States and Canada tend to adopt a more “domination-oriented” view, seeing wildlife primarily as a resource for human use.
Researchers argue that these differences closely mirror the colonial influence of European powers. Countries colonized by Britain developed more domination-based attitudes toward nature, while territories influenced by Spain and Portugal inherited cultural traditions more aligned with coexistence and mutualism.
The study analyzed responses from nearly 18,500 participants across 33 countries in Europe and the Americas. It also found that Indigenous populations across the continent generally hold strongly mutualistic views toward wildlife, particularly in Latin America where Indigenous communities remained numerically significant during colonization.
Lead researcher Michael Manfredo explained that historical religious and social transformations in northern Europe contributed to ideas of human control over nature, while southern European societies traditionally maintained more interconnected relationships with wildlife.
Beyond historical analysis, the findings carry direct implications for modern conservation policies. The researchers note that countries with domination-oriented values are generally more supportive of lethal wildlife control methods, especially in cases involving agriculture, public safety or invasive species. In contrast, societies with stronger mutualistic values tend to approve lethal control only in extreme situations.
The study also warns that conservation strategies developed in one cultural context may face resistance when applied elsewhere without considering local values and historical perspectives. Researchers believe understanding these cultural differences will become increasingly important for international wildlife protection efforts and environmental policymaking.
