Wildmeat access in the Brazilian Amazon 871


TABLE 3Wildmeat consumption in per cent of households across four Amazonian municipalities where wildmeat had been consumed, and the mean number of meals consumed containing wildmeat.


Households that had consumed wildmeat (%)


Area (by municipality)


Caapiranga Urban Rural


Ipixuna Urban Rural


Jutaí Urban Rural


Maués Urban Rural


Total Urban Rural


Previous year


72.7 93.8


86.0


100.0 80.6


95.8 54.3


95.0 73.4


96.1 Previous 30 days


41.9 60.0


45.0 72.5


39.8 70.4


15.6 72.5


35.6 68.8


of tapir in Ipixuna. However, even for this most commonly purchased species and location, c. 30% of meals containing the species were obtained as gifts. Some studies found social relations to be important for accessing wildmeat in towns (Morsello et al., 2015), but most studies attribute urban ac- cess to trade alone (Chaves et al., 2019; El Bizri et al., 2020b). Secondly, trade was important in towns but rare in rural


areas. Studies in other Amazonian towns have reported high rates of urban wildmeat purchases (70–86%; Chaves et al., 2019; El Bizri et al., 2020b). Our 43% estimate could reflect underreporting if interviewees perceived purchasing wild- meat as riskier than other forms of acquisition. However, we believe underreporting was probably low, as participants reported high purchase rates (c. 40–50%), even in the largest town of Maués (47%). In addition, direct questioning does not appear to generate underestimations of wildmeat con- sumption in Amazonian towns (Chaves et al., 2021b)as urban residents do not have negative attitudes towards pur- chasing wildmeat (Chaves et al., 2019). In rural areas, wild- meat was seldompurchased, being instead accessed through direct harvesting or social relations. Although our rural sample overrepresented small communities, we observed a greater probability of wildmeat purchase in larger commu- nities. Nascent trade in these larger communities could re- flect less food sharing because of less reciprocal cooperation (Ringen et al., 2019). Trade could therefore become more important in rural locations given that rural communities near towns are growing rapidly (Parry et al., 2010). Thirdly, rural–urban mobility remains common in cen-


tral Amazonia, influencing both wildmeat consumption and acquisition amongst town dwellers, but appearing to be less important in shaping rural consumption. In towns, poor and migrant households tended to access wildmeat through


Mean ± SD frequency of wildmeat consumption in the previous 30 days


All households


1.6 ± 4.0 3.9 ± 6.2


1.4 ± 3.5 4.7 ± 5.9


1.5 ± 3.1 4.5 ± 6.7


0.5 ± 2.0 5.7 ± 9.7


1.3 ± 3.2 4.7 ± 7.3


Consuming households only


3.9 ± 5.4 6.5 ± 6.9


3.1 ± 4.6 6.4 ± 6.0


3.7 ± 4.1 6.3 ± 7.3


3.4 ± 3.9 7.9 ± 10.6


3.6 ± 4.6 6.8 ± 7.9


rural connections and social practices (gift-giving) but pur- chasing was more likely amongst wealthier urban house- holds. The frequency of wildmeat consumption in towns was also mediated by rural connections and practices. Wildmeat was consumed more often by rural–urban mi- grants and those with rural livelihoods, demonstrating that rural–urban mobility (including identity) explains patterns of wildmeat consumption in urban Amazonia. This sup- ports the notion that wildmeat consumption is a rural trad- ition that is not restricted to Amazonia (for similar findings in the Republic of the Congo, see Chausson et al., 2019). The wildmeat food practices of migrants appear to fade after they have lived in towns for several decades (Chaves et al., 2021a; Lemos et al., 2021) and amongst subsequent genera- tions (Chausson et al., 2019; Luiselli et al., 2020). In rural areas, remote households consumed more wildmeat, per- haps because of better access to primary forests (and there- fore greater game availability; Parry et al., 2010) rather than because of reduced access to markets, given that rural con- sumption was unrelated to urban visitation. Alternatively, lower wildlife consumption in communities nearer towns could reflect wildlife depletion (Parry & Peres, 2015; Abrahams et al., 2017) instead of easier access to and higher consumption of domesticated meat. Nonetheless, a study in another Amazonian municipality found that rural people who spent more time in towns ate less wildmeat (Chaves et al., 2017). Fourthly, urban consumption concentrated on three


preferred species whereas rural populations generally consumed a greater number of species. The tapir and white-lipped peccary are categorized as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (Keuroghlian et al., 2013; Varela et al., 2019) and both our urban and rural interviewees perceived


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