Wildmeat access in the Brazilian Amazon 869
Material 1). We used generalized linear models for urban households and generalized linear mixed-effects models for rural households, using community identity as a random variable to nest households within the same community so as to account for spatial dependency.Wetreated municipal- ity as a fixed-effect factor for both rural and urban models. We tested for correlation between independent variables and found no strong correlations that would justify their ex- clusion, although community size (number of households) and frequency of urban visits bore some association with rural remoteness (distance from the nearest town; Supple- mentary Table 2).
Objective 3 We calculated the total amounts of wildmeat consumed in urban and rural areas of our study region based on our estimates of mean monthly and yearly con- sumption of wildmeat (kg) per household and per person (Supplementary Material 1). We then extrapolated these es- timates to include the other 39 municipalities not connected to roads in Amazonas (Fig. 1), using 2020 municipal popu- lation estimates (IBGE, 2020) and estimating the sizes of urban and rural subpopulations. We assumed two demo- graphic scenarios: (1) no change in the urbanization rate (proportion of the municipal population residing in urban areas) after 2010, and (2) that post-2010 the decadal change in the urbanization rate of a municipality was equal to that observed between the censuses of 2000 and 2010 (IBGE, 2000, 2010; e.g. an increase from 60 to 65%in 2000–2010 would mean a further increase to 70%in 2010–2020). We indicate the lower and higher bounds of our region-wide estimates based on the lowest and highest per-capita values calculated from the four fieldwork municipalities.
Results
Rural–urban mobility Wefound considerable rural–urban mobility amongst town residents, even in the largest town of Maués. In most house- holds in towns (57.3%) at least one of the household heads was a rural in-migrant, and in many households (42.7% overall or 44.2% of migrant households) someone visited rural areas at least monthly or practiced rural livelihoods (49.7% overall, increasing to 56.2% of migrant households, with rural-centric activities including agriculture, forest resource extraction and fishing). Dual residence (being multi-sited) was maintained by 24.5% of rural in-migrant households. Similarly, for rural residents rural–urban circu- lation was common: 67.5% travelled to the nearest town (mean = 84 km) at least monthly, whereas visiting weekly was rare (8.4%). Dual residence was maintained by 14.8% of rural residents (Fig. 2).
Objective 1: rural and urban wildmeat consumption
Wildmeat was eaten less often in towns than in rural com- munities. Consumption of wildmeat was ubiquitous in rural areas, whereas in towns 26.6%of householdshad noteaten any wildmeat in the previous 12 months (Table 3). Within our sample, per-capita annual consumption across munici- palities was 14.7–28.8 kg in rural areas (mean = 21.1; 95%CI= 15.9–27.3)and 1.3–6.4 kg in urban areas (mean = 4.9; 95% CI = 3.9–5.9).Wildmeat consumption was lower in towns be- cause it was eaten less often (urban mean = 1.3; 95%CI = 1.0– 1.5 meals per month; ruralmean = 4.7; 95%CI = 3.9–5.5 meals per month) and these meals were smaller (urban mean = 1.1; 95%CI = 1.0–1.3 kg wildmeat; rural mean = 1.8; 95%CI = 1.3– 2.3 kg wildmeat; Supplementary Table 3). Wildmeat consumed in urban areas was mainly of three
species: the lowland paca Cuniculus paca (eaten in 30.9% of events), tapir Tapirus terrestris (21.7%) and white-lipped peccary Tayassu pecari (20.5%). These species were also the ones most often declared as preferred (Figs 3 & 4, Supplementary Table 4). However, consumption in towns included 10–12 species, and in 26.7% of events people con- sumed brocket deer Mazama spp., curassow (Cracinae), agouti Dasyprocta spp., collared peccary Pecary tajacu or tortoise Chelonoidis spp. In rural areas consumption in- cluded 12–18 terrestrial species, with a more even distribu- tion of the per cent of consumption events across species. Lowland paca, tapir and white-lipped peccary accounted for 39.2% of events (16.0, 6.2 and 17.0%, respectively), com- pared to nearly 75% in towns. Howler monkeys Alouatta spp. were consumed almost as frequently as lowland paca in rural areas (13.4 and 16.0% of events, respectively), par- ticularly because of widespread rural consumption in Jutaí. In contrast, howler monkeys were rarely consumed in towns (2% of events) and brocket deer, curassow, agouti, collared peccary and tortoise together accounted for 39.9% of rural events (Supplementary Fig. 1). Wildmeat acquisitions via purchase and gifting were
at similar levels in towns (44.0 and 42.6% of households, respectively). In rural areas only 7.5% of households pur- chased wildmeat. Hunting by a household member also oc- curred amongst urban populations (11–15% of households). However, means of acquiring wildmeat varied by munici- pality (Fig. 5) and species. In the more remote municipalities of Ipixuna and Jutaí, purchase centred on tapir and white- lipped peccary, whereas paca was the most purchased spe- cies in Maués (Supplementary Figs 2 & 3).
Objective 2: rural–urban mobility and wildmeat access
In towns, consumption of wildmeat meals was 57%greater amongst rural in-migrants (incidence rate ratio = 1.57; 95% CI = 1.15–2.12) than amongst non-in-migrants, and 42%great- er for those with rural livelihoods (incidence rate ratio = 1.42;
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
