This study assessed cultural and behavioural drivers of zoonotic disease risk along the wild meat value chain in rural Cameroon. Researchers conducted 2,374 structured interviews with hunters and food preparers across 44 villages and surveyed 64 wild meat vendors in four regional markets. The work aimed to characterise handling and consumption practices, perceptions of disease risk, and how these vary by gender, age, and ethnicity, to inform context-sensitive interventions that protect human health while recognising the economic and cultural importance of wild meat.
Research was carried out in two study areas in Cameroon: Study Area 1 (South Region) and Study Area 2 (East Region). Sampling included household respondents (hunters and food preparers) across 44 rural villages and market surveys of 64 wild meat vendors in four regional markets. The study combined quantitative structured interviews with descriptive analyses to explore behaviours at multiple points along hunting, butchering, transport, and preparation stages of the value chain.
Ethnicity, gender, and age shaped involvement in hunting and species targeted. A higher percentage of Indigenous Baka respondents reported hunting than Bantu respondents. Among the Baka, women frequently participated in hunting activities, commonly by setting snares; by contrast, Bantu women rarely hunted. Baka hunters were more likely to target bats, identified in the paper as a high-risk taxonomic group because of known associations with filoviruses.
Women across both ethnic groups were more likely than men to take home carcasses found dead and to hunt small mammals such as rodents. Older individuals and women were generally less likely to hunt or handle animals displaying clinical abnormalities. These demographic patterns indicate distinct exposure pathways by gender, age, and cultural group.
Hygiene standards reported during handling and processing of wild meat were low. Fewer than 1% of household respondents reported using any form of personal protective equipment when handling wild animals. Only 6% of respondents reported cleaning butchering surfaces with soap. A substantial share of participants admitted to consuming or selling meat from animals that appeared visibly diseased—signs included abnormal organs, discolouration, or unusual odours. Injuries sustained during butchering were commonly reported, representing an additional route for potential exposure to animal blood and bodily fluids.
Concern about disease risk was relatively uncommon: 14.7% of households reported worry about disease transmission from wild animals. Where concern was present, it correlated with modest changes in protective behaviours. Reported concern was associated with an increase of approximately 5 percentage points in the likelihood of reported handwashing and a larger increase—about 16 percentage points—in the probability of avoiding contact with dead animals. These associations suggest that perception-based messaging may influence some behaviours, but baseline concern and uptake of protective practices are limited.
The study highlights clear differences in practices and perceptions between Indigenous Baka and Bantu respondents, and between men and women. Baka hunters’ greater targeting of bats and the higher participation of Baka women in hunting change the distribution of contact with high-risk species. Women’s greater tendency to retrieve carcasses found dead and to process small mammals increases their potential exposure in domestic settings. Older people and women tended to avoid handling visibly abnormal animals, but ethnically specific norms influenced these patterns. Overall, cultural norms and gender roles are central determinants of exposure opportunities along the wild meat value chain.
Findings underline the importance of designing public health strategies that are grounded in local sociocultural realities. Because wild meat supplies food and income, interventions that ignore livelihood needs risk being ineffective or harmful. The authors caution against indiscriminate bans on wildlife trade, noting potential adverse effects on poverty and food sovereignty documented in the literature. Instead, the evidence supports targeted, culturally sensitive risk communication and community-based approaches that can increase protective behaviours—such as improved hand hygiene, safer butchering practices, and strategies to reduce handling of animals showing clinical signs—while maintaining livelihoods.
The data underlying the study’s results are available on Dataverse. Funding for the research was provided by the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ). The authors declared no competing interests. The paper emphasises that public health measures should balance zoonotic risk reduction with respect for the economic and cultural roles of wild meat in rural communities.