870 P. Carignano Torres et al.
FIG. 2 Summary statistics of rural–urban mobility for households surveyed in four municipalities in Amazonas State, Brazil (Table 2). Error bars represent 95% CIs for the observed per cent values estimated using Wilson score intervals (CIs for binomial proportions).
95%CI = 1.06–1.89) than thosewho did not pursue rural-cen- tric activities. Consumption frequency was unrelated to rural visitation by town-dwellers when other variables were ac- counted for (Supplementary Table 5). In rural areas, consumption of wildmeat meals was 90%
greater in the high-water season (incidence rate ratio = 1.90, 95%CI = 1.23–2.89) than in the low-water season. Consumption was twice as high amongst non-floodplain communities compared to floodplain (várzea) communities (increasing by 107%; incidence rate ratio = 2.07, 95%CI = 1.08–4.01). Living 100 km farther from a town increased wildmeat consumption frequency by one meal per month (95%CI = 0.5–10.0; Supplementary Table 6). After ac- counting for rural remoteness, urban visitation by rural people was unrelated to wildmeat consumption frequency. Although we cannot completely exclude an effect of urban visits, it is probable that variation in rural consumption of wildlife reflects aspects of rural remoteness (e.g. lower human population density and more forest) more strongly than access to urban markets, as remoteness and urban visits were not strongly correlated. In towns, purchasing wildmeat correlated with higher in-
come. For a BRL 100 increase in monthly per-capita income (c. USD 19 at the time of the study), the odds of purchasing wildmeat increased by 13%(odds ratio = 1.13, 95%CI = 1.04– 1.24). In contrast, having a rural livelihood (compared to not) decreased the odds of purchasing wildmeat by 33% (odds ratio = 0.67, 95%CI = 0.46–0.96). The likelihood of wildmeat being purchased differed between towns; it was less likely in Caapiranga, with 53% lower odds compared to in Ipixuna (odds ratio = 0.47, 95%CI = 0.29–0.76). In rural areas, living in a larger community increased the
odds of a household purchasing wildmeat. An increase of 10 households increased the odds by 97% (odds ratio = 1.97, 95%CI = 1.01–4.08; Supplementary Table 7).
Objective 3: estimated wildmeat consumption in non-road-connected municipalities
When considering the study region and static municipal ur- banization rates (Scenario 1), we estimated overall wildmeat consumption (including purchased, gifted or hunted) to be over three times greater in rural areas (total 12,057 t/year) compared to urban areas (total 3,614 t/year). This is based on our empirical estimates of per-capita rural and urban consumption, official estimates of municipal population growth during 2010–2020 and the municipality-specific ur- banization rates in 2010. Nonetheless, these estimates have broad CIs (rural range: 9,103–15,635 t; urban range: 2,893– 4,336 t), given the observed municipality-scale variation in per-capita consumption. When assuming ongoing urban- ization (continuation of the observed municipal urbaniza- tion trends during 2000–2010; i.e. Scenario 2), the overall rural population of the study region would be 14% lower and the urban population 11% higher compared to Scenario 1. Yet rural consumption would still be more than twice that of urban consumption (rural total: 10,362 t, range: 7,823– 13,437 t; urban total: 4,009 t, range: 3,209–4,810 t).
Discussion
There were five main results of our study, highlighting one similarity and four rural–urban differences in wildmeat consumption and access. Firstly, the importance of gifting in both areas empha-
sizes the crucial role of social relations in accessing wild- meat. Although wildmeat sharing practices have been investigated in Indigenous and non-Indigenous rural communities in Amazonia (e.g. Nunes et al., 2019a), their importance is rarely assessed. Wildmeat purchase was com- mon in urban areas, with the highest rate of purchase being
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
