Wildmeat access in the Brazilian Amazon 867 TABLE 1 Physical and demographic characteristics of the four Amazonian municipalities studied (Fig. 1).


Forest cover (%) Area (km2)


Travel distance (km) Population


Urban population (%)


Urban population change (%)


Rural population change (%)


Municipality Caapiranga Ipixuna Jutaí 89.7


96.9


9,472 162


13,081 46.8


64.5 2.7


Maués Description


12,220 69,961 40,256 Municipality area 2,566


92.7 947


64.8 41.8


58.6 37.3


90.7 Per cent of remaining forest cover (INPE, 2019)


342 Travel distance from the state capital, Manaus, to the urban centre of the municipality (Parry et al., 2018)


29,689 14,317 63,905 Estimated population size in 2020 (IBGE, 2020) 42.7


–49.5


49.5 Urban population in the most recent national population census (IBGE, 2010)


22.3 Urban population change between the two most recent national population censuses (IBGE, 2000, 2010)


40.0 Rural population change between the two most recent national population censuses (IBGE, 2000, 2010)


not sample multi-sited households in both their urban and rural locations.


Data collection


We conducted a survey to collect data on household rural– urban mobility, wildmeat consumption and socio-economic and demographic characteristics using face-to-face interviews (Supplementary Material 1–4). Using the same method, we collected community-level information from rural commu- nity leaders (Table 2, Supplementary Table 1).We conducted the interviews in Brazilian Portuguese, the native language of all interviewees and interviewers.We pre-tested the interview protocol (in May/June 2015) in urban and rural areas of a similar municipality in Amazonas (Autazes). Authors PCT and LP coordinated the survey, which was conducted to- gether with nine other researchers and assistants.


Measures of mobility


We measured the rural–urban mobility of households using four binary indicators for urban households and two for rural households (Table 2). Mobility constitutes rural– urban movements (i.e. circulation; Dodd, 2020), household economic strategies (Nasuti et al., 2015) and the geographical origin and identity of household heads (Castree et al., 2013).


Measures of wildlife consumption, preference and potential reporting bias


To measure wildmeat consumption, we asked about the number of meals in which wildmeat had been consumed in the previous 30 days. We also asked when wildmeat had last been consumed in the household and recorded the date of that event (to establish whether it had been consumed in the previous 12 months), whether it had been purchased, gifted or hunted by a household member


(Table 2) and which species had been eaten, the quantity (in kg, the whole animal or pieces) and divided across how many meals. With this information, we estimated wildmeat consumed per meal in the household and per person (for each household; Supplementary Material 1). To evaluate meat preferences, we asked the interviewee


(male or female household head) to rank their three most preferred types of meat. If the interviewee cited wildmeat we asked which species they preferred. In Brazil commercial hunting and wildmeat trade are


illegal whereas subsistence hunting has an uncertain legal status, with it being allowed for traditional communities or subsistence hunters in a state of necessity, although this is subject to arbitrary legal interpretation (Antunes et al., 2019). Despite this, wildmeat hunting and consumption are ubiquitous in Amazonia and trade occurs in some food markets (under the counter), restaurants (clandestine- ly) and elsewhere through social networks (van Vliet et al., 2015b; Chaves et al., 2019; El Bizri et al., 2020b). Wild- meat consumption in small and medium-sized towns in Amazonas State is unlikely to be underreported when using direct questioning. If a household declares its con- sumption of wildmeat it is unlikely to underreport the quan- tity consumed (Chaves et al., 2021b). We were often offered wildmeat in both rural and urban areas whilst conducting the current study. Similarly, numerous Amazonian studies using direct questioning have documented high rates of wildmeat consumption (Chaves et al., 2019; El Bizri et al., 2020b) and that local attitudes towards wildmeat purchases are not negative (Chaves et al., 2019).


Data analysis


We conducted all data analyses in R 4.0.2 (R Core Team, 2020).


Objective 1 We used descriptive statistics to compare differences in consumption rates and means of acquiring


Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 864–876 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001575


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164