A recent study highlights a significant disconnect between media narratives and public perceptions regarding the consumption of wild meat in Central Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conducted by researchers from the University of Oxford, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), CIFOR-ICRAF, and various institutional partners, the findings reveal crucial insights into how media reporting influences community beliefs and behaviors surrounding wildlife consumption. The study is published in People and Nature.
Media Coverage Versus Public Beliefs
The media has primarily focused on the dangers of zoonotic diseases linked to wild meat consumption. According to Yuhan Li, a DPhil student at the University of Oxford and the study’s lead author, “Media articles tended to emphasize the risks of a virus spill-over from wild meat to humans.” However, the research indicates that individuals’ food choices are more influenced by personal experiences and economic factors rather than media portrayals.
Wild meat serves as a significant source of nutrition and income in Central Africa. Despite the media’s assertions, the study found that many individuals perceived domesticated red meat as the more dangerous protein source. Researchers analyzed over 260 media articles from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Gabon, and the Republic of Congo, alongside phone surveys from over 3,600 participants in Cameroon and DRC. While 61% of the articles discussed the risks associated with wild meat, public sentiment reflected a more complex understanding.
The findings revealed that nearly half of the respondents in Cameroon reported reducing their wild meat consumption due to health concerns. In contrast, one-third of DRC respondents increased their consumption due to the scarcity and cost of alternatives.
Communicating Change Effectively
Effective communication strategies are vital for addressing public perceptions of wild meat. The study suggests that interventions must be culturally appropriate and resonate with community needs. Although media discussions proposed bans on wild meat trading as a potential policy response to COVID-19, opinions among respondents varied significantly. Cameroonian participants were divided, while support for such measures was stronger in DRC.
Lude Kinzonzi from the Wildlife Conservation Society emphasizes the importance of understanding community motivations. “If we want to shift behaviors around wild meat consumption in Central Africa, we need to start by listening,” Kinzonzi stated. He argues that top-down bans or generic health warnings are often ineffective. Successful interventions should be based on evidence and delivered through trusted local voices, along with viable alternatives for consumers and vendors alike.
The authors advocate for evidence-based communication campaigns and collaboration with local influencers. They also call for targeted policy measures that expand access to safe and affordable substitutes for wild meat.
A comprehensive approach can benefit both biodiversity conservation and human health, especially in regions where wild meat remains integral to food security and livelihoods. The study underscores the need for stronger local institutions and monitoring systems to support these initiatives.
For more detailed insights, refer to the study titled “The impact of COVID-19 on public perceptions of wild meat in Central Africa,” published in People and Nature. The DOI for the study is 10.1002/pan3.70094.