Plain Language Summary: The influence of urbanization, poverty, and rural connections in shaping dietary choices between wild and domesticated meat in the Amazon.

By Willandia A. Chaves, Denis Valle, Aline S. Tavares, Thais Q. Morcatty, Marcelo D. Vidal, Tatiana Schor, Eduardo M. von Muhlen, and David S. Wilcove.

Read the full paper here.

Today, more people live in urban areas than in rural areas globally. This urbanization process can influence a shift from consuming wild foods (e.g., wildlife) to domesticated foods (e.g., chicken, beef). Despite a decline in per capita consumption of wild foods in urban areas, the demand for natural resources is expected to rise due to the increasing urban population. How does meat consumption by people living in a large city differ from people living in small towns? How does the consumption relate to how wealthy people are or whether they know people from rural areas?

We conducted a study to answer these questions. We wanted to understand how different urban areas (from small towns to large cities) and other factors like poverty and connections to rural areas influence the consumption and preferences for meat from wild mammals, birds, turtles, fish, and domesticated animals. We surveyed households across 10 urban areas in the Amazonas state, Brazil.

Our findings revealed that people in larger cities, compared to small towns, consume more domesticated animals and less wildlife and fish. Additionally, the larger the city, the less people prefer the taste of wild meat. Households with higher poverty levels consume more fish and processed meat, and less beef and pork, than wealthier households.

These results indicate that meat consumption and preferences are changing with urbanization, but are also influenced by poverty and rural connections. Policies addressing wildlife conservation (like the negative effects on vulnerable species) and societal issues (like food insecurity) must consider these factors instead of implementing a complete ban on urban wildlife consumption.