Linkages between household wealth, bushmeat and other animal protein consumption are not invariant: evidence from Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea

Abstract

Bushmeat consumption is affected by household wealth. However, how household wealth impacts bushmeat eaten in different environmental and social settings (i.e. whether urban, rural, coastal or forest) is poorly understood. In this study, we sampled households in six contrasting localities in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea, in coastal (Bata, Cogo), central (Niefang, Evinayong) and eastern parts of the territory (Ebebiyin, Nsork). On average, 32.3 g of bushmeat per adult male equivalent per day were consumed, though this varied widely between sites and most households ate no bushmeat on the survey day. Fish was the most frequently recorded source of protein and in a coastal site, Cogo, significantly more fish was consumed than in the other localities. Overall, average protein consumption was correlated with household wealth, but the strength of this effect varied among sites. At the site where average wealth was highest (Bata, the most urban site), bushmeat was more expensive, and wealthier households ate more of it. Elsewhere bushmeat consumption was not associated with wealth, and the cost of bushmeat was a higher proportion of household wealth. In Bata, wealthier households reported consumption of more than one meat type (most frequently bushmeat and either domestic meat or fish), and diversity of dietary items also increased with wealth. In all sites, wealthier households ate less fish. We demonstrate distinct differences in relationships between urban versus rural areas, and between coastal versus inland sites. We therefore caution that general patterns of wealth-wild meat consumption must be evaluated taking account the circumstances of wild meat consumers.

Cultural attitudes are stronger predictors of bushmeat consumption and preference than economic factors among urban Amazonians from Brazil and Colombia

“…The first finding might either support or contradict previous evidence because, as with income, the association between wealth and bushmeat consumption is highly variable across locations. In urban contexts, previous studies have reported that richer individuals consume either more (Fa et al 2009, Brashares et al 2011) or less (van Vliet et al 2015b bushmeat, variability that has also been observed in rural contexts (de Merode et al 2004, Fa et al 2009, Godoy et al 2010, Brashares et al 2011, Jenkins et al 2011. In studies based in urban areas in which greater wealth has been associated with increased consumption, bushmeat is expensive, whereas the opposite has occurred when a negative correlation has been observed.…”

“…Although at least one study found that higher household income is associated with reduced bushmeat consumption in West Africa (Albrechtsen et al 2005), additional findings have shown that increases in income (Mbete et al 2011), wealth (as measured through expenditures; Fa et al 2009), or both (East et al 2005, Brashares et al 2011, Jenkins et al 2011) may increase bushmeat consumption.…”

Bushmeat harvest in tropical forests: Knowledge base, gaps and research priorities

“…Once people can afford modern arms, the use of bushmeat may well decline with increasing income, as in Latin America (Wilkie and Godoy 2001) and Equatorial Guinea (Albrechtsen et al 2006). However, where bushmeat conveys status or is preferred for taste or other cultural reasons, its consumption will rise steadily with income, as in Gabon (Wilkie et al 2005) and even elsewhere in Equatorial Guinea (Fa et al 2009). In the largest regional study in Africa, bushmeat consumption increases with wealth in urban areas and declines with wealth in rural areas .…”

“…Specifically, in a large-scale study of bushmeat markets, mammals represented more than 90% of the meat sold from central African moist forests; reptiles are common, but birds and amphibians are scarce (Fa et al 2009). Among those mammals, most were ungulates (36-40%) and rodents (34-38%), with primates representing fewer (13-19%) carcasses (Jerozolimski and Peres 2003).…”

Trends in bushmeat trade in a postconflict forest town: implications for food security

“…Price ratios for comparing the relative affordability of bushmeat compared to alternative sources of animal protein were calculated using sampling period means for each protein type. A decrease in the prices of alternative sources of animal protein relative to the price of bushmeat, would either indicate that bushmeat is becoming a luxury consumer good or that alternative proteins become available at more affordable prices (Cowlishaw et al 2005, Fa et al 2009). …”