{"paper_id":"030f5802-e0b6-493d-acc7-bd0f914a99e6","body_text":"Regional Dynamics of Zoonotic Risk Perception and Wildlife Use in Ghana | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Regional Dynamics of Zoonotic Risk Perception and Wildlife Use in Ghana Haruna Abukari, Bright O. Kankam, Ziblim A. Imoro This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7304225/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine → Version 1 posted 15 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Public health concerns in the procurement and consumption of bushmeat have largely been subdued by the socio-economic importance of the commodity. However, recent pandemics such as COVID-19 and the Ebola virus have put a spotlight on the need to avert health risks associated with the bushmeat industry in West Africa. This study used a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) approach to investigate hunting and bushmeat patronage and zoonotic diseases concern in Ghana. A total of 335 respondents were contacted in a household survey, and 53 hunters were interviewed as key informants. Results: The results indicate that the outbreak of COVID-19 may have affected bushmeat consumption as more respondents consumed bushmeat before COVID-19 than after COVID-19 with a significant difference between consumers in northern Ghana and those in southern Ghana [ X 2 (1, N = 335) = 16.224, p = .003]. However, the popular perception was that human-to-human contact remains the major route of viral disease transmission and not from wild animals to humans. Hunting activities were drastically reduced during COVID-19 but surprisingly the hunters attributed the decline to diminishing game numbers in their hunting grounds instead of COVID-19. Conclusion: The results show that bushmeat hunting and consumption are not considered as effective routes of transferring zoonotic pathogens to humans. There is therefore a need for repackaging public education messages to reiterate the fact that zoonotic diseases can start at any place once there is an effective interaction between animals and humans. Consequently, conservation goals may be achieved if anti-poaching campaigns are designed to centre on public health benefits that can be injured by avoiding hunting and bushmeat consumption. bushmeat zoonotic diseases hunting protected areas Ghana Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Hunting wild animals for food has existed for many cneturies [1] and has provided food and supplementary income for millions of people in most rural communities in West Africa [2 – 4]. Although hunting is mostly done in rural areas, the consumption of bushmeat is common in both rural and urban areas [5 – 7]. In Ghana, bushmeat is widely regarded as a delicacy, contributing to consistently high levels of consumer demand. For instance, the market price of a kilogram of Maxwell’s duiker ( Philantomba monticola ) or brush-tailed porcupine ( Atherurus spp.) can exceed that of beef by as much as 108%, yet this significant price differential does not appear to deter consumption [4, 7, 9]. The increasing dependence on bushmeat as a free resource continues to threaten biodiversity in most protected areas due to overhunting [10, 11]. Coad et al. [3] have identified unsustainable levels of hunting as a major challenge to wildlife conservation. In Ghana, stable populations of wildlife are present only in forest reserves, national parks and other protected areas [12]. Increasing hunting pressure therefore threatens biodiversity conservation as well as human health with potential outbreak of zoonotic diseases. People may have preferences for bushmeat based on culture and traditions [13]; however, they may be unaware of the health risk associated with harvesting and eating bushmeat [8, 14]. For instance, Eidolon helvum , a fruit bat that is widely eaten in West Africa, hosts several zoonotic pathogens including the deadly Ebola virus [15]. However, it may not be prudent to ban bushmeat to safeguard public health because bushmeat underpins food security and livelihoods in some countries [8]. Indeed, bans on the bushmeat trade after the Ebola outbreak in West Africa from 2013–2016 did not stop it but pushed it underground [8, 16 – 18]. This suggests that a ban on the use of bushmeat for any reason may not be effective. Circumstances surrounding the outbreak of COVID-19 put a spotlight on the potential risk of zoonoses transfer from wild animals to humans through bushmeat procurement and consumption. Public education messages in Ghana advised people to refrain from capturing wild animals and consuming bushmeat since the proximal origin of the virus was suspected to be from the wildlife [19, 20]. In this regard, it would be useful to establish an in-depth understanding of the perception of hunters and bushmeat consummers on zoonoses transmission. We tried to address this knowledge gap by using a mix of both qualitative and quantitative approaches [21, 22] to investigate how hunting and bushmeat consumption behaviour in Ghana may have changed following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the perceptions of bushmeat users and hunters may help in the development of interventions that could influence behaviour change [21, 23]. This may engender positive attitudes towards wildlife conservation. The COVID-19 pandemic and Ebola virus diseases were only used as reference events to help respondents link zoonotic diseases and the bushmeat industry. This is because Ghanaians have had public health education on COVID-19 and Ebola viral diseases. The study compared public perceptions in the northern and southern regions of Ghana, which differ significantly in ecological characteristics and sociocultural structures [24]. The northern region is predominantly characterized by savanna vegetation, whereas the southern region is largely composed of rainforest ecosystems. These ecological distinctions are reflected in the variation of wildlife species and hunting practices across the two zones [25]. Additionally, household-level economic conditions and cultural beliefs related to protein consumption vary between the regions [26]. The comparison was further justified by the consistently higher incidence of COVID-19 cases reported in southern Ghana compared to the northern region. These ecological, economic, and cultural differences are likely to influence local perceptions of wildlife-associated zoonotic risks and related behavioral practices that could facilitate zoonotic spillover. The specific objectives of the study are to: i) assess the perceptions of residents on wildlife-related zoonosis as a threat to human health, ii) assess the impact of COVID-19 hunting and bushmeat consumption in Ghana, and iii) assess the precautionary measures hunters may take to protect themselves from wildlife-related zoonosis Methods Study sites The study was conducted in Ghana around two key protected areas—the Mole National Park (MNP) and the Atewa Range Forest Reserve (ARFR) (Figure 1). The two protected areas (PAs) were strategically selected to cover nationwide characteristics of hunting and bushmeat patronage in Ghana. The MNP is in the savanna ecological zone in northern Ghana, while the ARFR is in the rainforest ecological zone in southern Ghana. Bushmeat serves as an important source of protein and income for rural households in Ghana [27] including those in the selected comunities. The Atewa Range Forest Reserve The ARFR comprises a forest reserve (a protected area) and contiguous off-reserve areas of the same vegetation type. The vegetation is a moist semi-deciduous forest type and it covers an area of 23,663 ha. The area experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern. The rains usually start in April and end in June, and again from September to November, giving an annual average of about 1,600 mm. The average temperatures are between 24 0 C and 29 0 C. ARFR is a strip of unique upland forest with rich faunal diversity which includes 239 bird species, 69 mammals, 40 amphibians, and 14 reptiles [28]. It is also home to a large diversity of plants, including 656 species of vascular plants [29]. Various official classifications have been given to ARF due to its importance to the country and the world. It was designated a national forest reserve in 1926, a Special Biological Protection Area in 1994, a Hill Sanctuary in 1995, and one of Ghana’s 30 Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas (GSBAs) in 1999. The ARFR was again listed as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by BirdLife International in 2001. Among the various ecosystem services provided by the ARFR, local communities near and far harvest non-timber forest products such as snails, honey, mushroom, rattan, herbs, and bushmeat. The value of bushmeat extracted from the ARF annually is estimated at 5.2 million United States dollars [29]. Indeed, this level of exploitation puts pressure on the ARFR [27]. The Mole National Park Mole National Park is located in the savannah ecological zone in northern Ghana. It is the largest wildlife reserve in Ghana covering some 4840 km². The savannah in northern Ghana experiences a unimodal rainfall pattern where almost half of the year (from May to October) is wet and the other half (November to April) is dry. The average rainfall is 1100 mm with the peak of the rainy season happening in July and August. The MNP is dominated by an open savannah woodland type of vegetation, where tree cover varies from 5% to 65% and averages at 30%. There are at least 94 mammal species, over 300 bird species, 9 amphibian species, and 33 reptile species in the MNP [30]. The park is surrounded by 33 communities and the commonest livelihood activity for people in these communities is crop farming. Non-timber forest products in the MNP area include bushmeat, honey, fuelwood, grass for roofing, rafters, herbs, fruits, and nuts. Illegal hunting is common in MNP [31, 32]. Sampling strategy We used two sampling techniques: household survey and key informant interviews. Five communities, each near the MNP and ARFR were selected based on the intensity of hunting activities. We used records from the staff of the two protected areas to select the first five communities with the highest number of reported poaching and communal hunting activities. The selected communities include Larabanga, Senyon, Kananto, Grupe, and Kabampe for the MNP; and Dompem, Ahwenease, Sagyimase, Saaman and Akwadum for the ARFR (Figure 1). The household survey The Expanded Programme of Immunisation (EPI) sampling [33]was used to select households from the selected communities. The EPI method was used because of difficulty in getting the sample frame (the number of total households) in communities within the study areas [34, 35]. This is because housing structures in most of the communities did not have identification numbers that could be used for simple random sampling. Per the EPI procedure, the selected communities were considered clusters, and the number of household samples taken from a cluster was proportionate to the size of the cluster [34]. In a chosen cluster, (i) a location was selected near the centre of the community, (ii) a random direction was then determined by spinning a pen, and (iii) a random household along the chosen direction pointing outwards the centre of the community was selected to start with. In the subsequent steps, which were carried out iteratively, the closest household to the one determined in the previous step is chosen and checked for compliance with the inclusion criteria. The process is repeated until the required number of households is surveyed [34]. The survey was conducted from November to December 2020. Enumerators were recruited and given one-day training on the EPI method and how to administer the questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed in English because all enumerators were fluent in both English and the local languages (Twi, Gonja and Kamara) spoken in the study areas. The definition of bushmeat was given in the local parlance to ensure that respondents understood exactly what was referred to as bushmeat in this study. The key informant interviews The key informant interview targeted hunters in the selected communities to gather information on hunting practices and precautionary measures towards the prevention of zoonotic diseases from their game. The snowball sampling technique [36] was used to get informants. We specifically used the linear snowball sampling technique where we identified the first interviewee through a tip-off. The first informant then volunteered information about the next potential informant and the process repeated until the responses became repetitive and patterns emerged. Where a potential informant would not grant an interview, researchers would fall back on a previous informant to suggest a new potential informant. We got 31 informants (hunters) in the communities near the MNP and 22 hunters in the communities near the ARFR (Table). According to Kumar [37], 15–35 informants are enough for a theme under discussion. The interviews were conducted face-to-face from December 2020 to January 2021. The interview guide comprised three sections: the introduction, key questions, and conclusion. The introduction involved a self-introduction of the interviewer and an introduction of the project to explain the purpose of the project to the interviewee. Other aspects of the introduction included establishing the credibility of the interviewer and the interview process and an explanation of why the informant’s cooperation is important for the success of the project. The subsequent sections had a checklist of key questions that covered thematic areas to answer the objectives of the study. The checklist covered questions on the demographic information of hunters, hunting activities before and during COVID-19, precautions against contracting zoonotic diseases from game, perceptions on the use of personal protective equipment during hunting, perception of the impact of COVID-19 on bushmeat trade, and the decline in hunting activities in Ghana. The consent of respondents was sought before any interview was conducted. Data analysis Data was analysed using SPSS version 20 and Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics have been presented in percentages, tables and graphs. Chi-square test was used to determine the difference between some demographic variables (gender, education and occupation) for the group of respondents in northern Ghana and those in southern Ghana. Chi-square test was also used to determine if there were significant differences between the opinions of the two groups of respondents regarding meat preference, and bushmeat patronage before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 1). Student t -test was used to test significant differences between ages and household sizes of the two groups of respondents. “Age” and “household size” were measured as continuous variables. Results Respondent Demographics A total of 335 respondents participated in the study, comprising 178 from northern Ghana and 157 from southern Ghana. The mean age of respondents in southern Ghana (M = 44.7, SD = 16.4) was significantly higher than that of respondents in northern Ghana (M = 36.7, SD = 14.2), t (315) = 4.816, p < .001. Age ranged from 18 to 84 years in southern Ghana and 18 to 86 years in northern Ghana. Respondents from northern Ghana reported significantly larger household sizes (M = 9.6, SD = 6.7) compared to their southern counterparts (M = 5.2, SD = 3.2), t (323) = -7.379, p < .001. Household sizes in northern Ghana ranged from 1 to 50, while those in southern Ghana ranged from 1 to 17. Educational attainment varied markedly between the regions. Ninety-four percent of southern respondents had received some form of formal education, compared to 66% in the north, χ²(1, N = 335) = 35.864, p < .001. Gender distribution did not differ significantly between regions, with males representing 63% of respondents in the north and 58% in the south. Table 1 summarizes the demographic and key categorical variables. Table 1 Demographic and other variables showing difference between respondents in northern Ghana and southern Ghana Northern Ghana (n = 178) Southern Ghana (n = 157) Variables (continuous) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) T P Age 36.7 ( 14.2 ) 44.7 ( 16.4 ) 4.816 ˂.001* Household size 9.6 ( 6.7 ) 5.2 ( 3.2 ) 7.379 ˂.001* Variables (categorical) % % X 2 P Gender 0.859 .208 Female 37 42 Male 63 58 Education 35.864 ˂.001* Literate 66 94 Nonliterate 34 6 Occupation 2.052 .093 Farmer 51 43 other 49 57 Meat preference 0.624 .360 Bushmeat 22 24 Other protein sources 78 76 knowledge of the origin of zoonotic diseases (e.g., Ebola, COVID-19) 0.117 .413 Yes 70 69 No 30 31 Consumption of bushmeat before COVID-19 pandemics 16.224 .003* Yes 81 62 No 19 38 Consumption of bushmeat after COVID-19 pandemics 27.226 ˂.001* Yes 61 33 No 39 77 Perceptions and Practices Related to Bushmeat and Zoonotic Diseases Approximately 70% of respondents across both regions reported awareness of the connection between wildlife and zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19. This awareness was largely acquired through mass media—97% in northern Ghana and 85% in southern Ghana. Despite this awareness, bushmeat consumption remained widespread. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, bushmeat consumption was higher in the north (81%) than in the south (62%), χ²(1, N = 325) = 16.224, p = .003. Post-pandemic consumption declined in both regions but remained significantly higher in northern Ghana (61%) than in the south (33%), χ²(1, N = 325) = 27.226, p < .001. When given equal access to bushmeat and other protein sources, 78% of northern and 76% of southern respondents indicated a preference for bushmeat, suggesting cultural or dietary predispositions toward wild game, though this difference was not statistically significant, χ²(1, N = 325) = 0.624, p = .360. Notably, while over 80% of respondents acknowledged the health threat posed by zoonotic diseases, including COVID-19, this concern did not appear to significantly deter bushmeat consumption. This may reflect a prevailing belief that zoonotic infections are primarily transmitted through human-to-human contact rather than animal-to-human interactions. Regional differences emerged regarding perceived routes of disease transmission from wildlife. Respondents in northern Ghana commonly cited the capture and handling of live animals as the primary transmission route, whereas those in southern Ghana more often identified the consumption of inadequately cooked bushmeat as the major risk (Fig. 2 ). Religious beliefs also influenced risk perception: 58% of northern respondents and 80% of southern respondents agreed with the statement, “God protects me so I cannot get diseases from eating bushmeat” , χ²(1, N = 325) = 18.175, p < .001, underscoring the role of faith in shaping health behaviors. Hunting Practices and Disease Prevention Among Hunters Interviews were conducted with 53 hunters (31 from northern Ghana and 22 from southern Ghana), all of whom also engaged in farming or petty trading. On average, hunters had six years of experience, and all were male—consistent with the gendered nature of hunting in Ghana (Table 2 ). Most hunters pursued game for both household consumption and supplementary income, with regional variation: 82% in the north and 68% in the south. Despite their occupational exposure, none of the hunters reported using personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, masks, or protective clothing. Explanations ranged from beliefs that PPEs are impractical in forest settings, unaffordable, or irrelevant to hunting activities (Table 2 ). Cultural and spiritual beliefs were also cited, with some hunters claiming spiritual protection or traditional medicine as sufficient safeguards against disease. Table 2 Hunters’ perceptions about using personal protective equipment when hunting Northern Ghana Southern Ghana ¬ PPEs are not suitable for the bush. ¬ PPEs are for health workers and not people who work in the bush. ¬ You cannot walk freely or run to chase animals when in PPEs. ¬ We are farmers and sometimes we go hunting after farm work. So, whatever we wear to the farm is what we use for hunting. ¬ You cannot get diseases just by shooting and slaughtering animals. ¬ You only have to be careful so you do not get a bite or scratch from the animal. That way you cannot get any disease from them. ¬ We protect ourselves spiritually and it covers everything ¬ When you shoot or trap a sick animal, you have to leave it in the bush so that you do not transmit its disease to humans. ¬ We do not have the money to buy those equipment. ¬ Hunting is not like killing domestic animals, sometimes we go days without killing. So, you cannot be wearing PPEs around when you are not sure of getting any animal. ¬ We do not kill sick animals or pick dead ones, we only kill healthy animals, and those ones do not have the pathogen to transfer to us. ¬ When you dress like a doctor or engineer to go hunting, you may not kill any animal because the animals will notice you early and run away. ¬ We have some local medicine to apply when we get hurt by animals. ¬ During the ‘closed season’* for hunting some people still go hunting. So, if they wear some “uniform” [PPEs], they can easily be identified and get arrested. * = In Ghana, the \"Close Season\" is a period in which hunting of wild animals is prohibited except the grasscutter. It is observed annually from August 1st to December 1st. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, 72% of hunters in northern Ghana and 51% in southern Ghana reported a decline in hunting activity (Fig. 3 ). However, contrary to expectations, this decline was attributed more to wildlife population depletion than to health concerns. This suggests that ecological factors, rather than disease risk, are the primary constraint on hunting activities in both regions. Discussion This study reveals regionally distinctive demographic, cultural, and behavioral dynamics that shape perceptions and practices surrounding bushmeat consumption and zoonotic disease risk in Ghana. While both northern and southern Ghanaian communities demonstrate a baseline awareness of zoonotic disease transmission, the findings underscore some disparities in demographic profiles, educational access, household structure, and local knowledge systems that mediate their interpretations of zoonotic disease risk and behavioral responses. Sociodemographic factors and implications for disease risk The demographic divergence between northern Ghana and southern Ghana is particularly pronounced in household size, educational attainment, and age. Respondents in northern Ghana reported significantly larger households and lower educational levels, consistent with earlier demographic profiles of Ghana’s savannah ecological zone [ 38 ]. Respondents from larger households (comprising ten or more members), predominantly located in northern Ghana, reported a higher frequency of bushmeat consumption compared to their counterparts in southern Ghana, where smaller household sizes are more common. This pattern may be attributed to the increased likelihood of at least one member engaging in hunting activities in larger households, thereby enhancing access to bushmeat. These findings are consistent with those of Mbete et al. [ 39 ], who observed that households with ten or more members in Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, exhibited significantly higher levels of bushmeat consumption than smaller households with nine or fewer members. These sociodemographic factors are also known to influence risk perception, health-seeking behavior, and information access [ 40 ]. For instance, larger households with lower literacy levels as it occurred in northern Ghana, may constrain comprehension of risk narratives thereby lowering the success of educational campaigns aimed at behavioral change. Bushmeat Consumption after COVID-19 Pandemic Despite widespread awareness (approximately 70%) of zoonotic disease risks, the study found that bushmeat consumption remained rampant, particularly in northern Ghana. The disparity may be attributed to both ecological and cultural factors. Hunting tends to be more feasible in savanna landscapes due to greater visibility and ease of movement compared to the denser vegetation and more challenging terrain of rainforest areas. Furthermore, cultural practices in northern Ghana may contribute to this pattern, as hunting, particularly in the form of annual communal hunts organized between February and March, is deeply embedded in the traditions of many ethnic groups in the region. During this period, bushmeat becomes relatively more accessible to both rural and urban households. This resilience of bushmeat consumption, even in the face of pandemic-induced anxieties, suggests that cultural affinity for bushmeat is deeply entrenched and resistant to short-term health interventions in Ghana. Moreover, perceptions surrounding zoonotic disease risks appear to differ between the two regions. In northern Ghana, nearly two-thirds of respondents continued their regular bushmeat consumption habits following the outbreak of COVID-19 (Table 1 ), suggesting limited behavioral change in response to the pandemic. This observation likely reflects prevailing beliefs about the presence and severity of COVID-19 in the region during the early stages of the outbreak. Reported case numbers support this perception: between March and May 2020, only 107 COVID-19 cases were recorded in the northern region (population 8,538,345), in contrast to 5,989 cases in the southern region, which had a population of 21,782,132 [ 41 , 42 ]. These differences in disease burden may have influenced the risk perceptions and subsequent dietary behaviors of northern residents towards bushmeat. The finding aligns with earlier studies that have identified bushmeat not only as a dietary preference but as a cultural symbol and socio-economic necessity [ 10 , 40 ] Equally important is the finding that most respondents, when given equal access to bushmeat and other protein sources, still favored bushmeat. This preference, although not statistically different between regions, further complicates efforts to reduce demand through public health campaigns alone. The preference may be informed by taste, cultural beliefs, or perceptions of bushmeat as a healthier source of protein to processed meats, a finding corroborated by earlier studies across West Africa [ 2 , 43 ]. Risk perception underpinned by religion and cultural rationalization Perhaps one of the more revealing insights from this study is the religious framing of zoonotic risk. A significantly higher proportion of southern respondents (80%) than northern respondents (58%) believed that divine protection shields them from disease risks associated with bushmeat consumption. This perhaps explain why after any zoonotic disease scare, Ghanaians would return to consume bushmeat, trusting on divine protection against any diseases. Most Ghanaians are religious [ 44 ] and would put their faith in God or deities for solutions to their life problems including health-related concerns. It is an ethos of Ghanaians to take their fears and hopes or anything that affects well-being, to the spiritual realm for a solution, and COVID-19 was not an exception. To explore this dimension, a question was included in the study to assess perceptions of zoonotic disease spread within the spiritual worldview. Responses from both Christian and Muslim participants indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic was widely interpreted as an act of God, a form of divine retribution intended to punish humanity for moral transgressions. This health behavior reinforced by religious convictions is well documented in sub-Saharan Africa and presents both challenges and opportunities for public health outreach [ 45 ]. It reflects a form of cultural rationalization that can undermine evidence-based risk messaging unless interventions are carefully framed to respect and incorporate religious and cultural values. Hunting Practices The gendered nature of hunting, exclusively undertaken by men, was consistent with broader West African patterns [ 46 ]. Most informants (hunters) across both northern and southern Ghana reported engaging in hunting as a secondary livelihood activity, primarily to supplement household protein needs and income derived from their primary occupation – farming. This aligns with [Kmpel et al. [ 46 ], who observed that hunting significantly contributes to household income in rural Ghanaian communities. Typically, hunting is pursued during periods of reduced agricultural activity, serving as a seasonal income strategy for farming households. Given that the majority of rural dwellers in Ghana are employed in agriculture, such diversification is critical for sustaining livelihoods. However, the lack of precautionary measures to prevent zoonotic disease among hunters across both regions signals a dangerous gap in occupational safety practices. Hunters articulated several reasons, ranging from cost and impracticality to spiritual beliefs and legal risks during the ‘Close Season’, for not using PPE. These perceptions reveal a combination of logistical constraints and cultural heuristics that frame PPE as both inappropriate and counterproductive. Importantly, the dominant belief that healthy-looking animals cannot transmit diseases and that traditional medicine or spiritual protection suffices, are deeply problematic. Such narratives reflect ecological knowledge rooted in empirical observation but can dangerously obscure the asymptomatic nature of zoonotic pathogens in wild hosts [ 47 ]. Many hunters downplayed the health risks posed by wild animals, with some asserting that bushmeat is healthier than meat from domesticated animals treated with chemicals. One key informant from northern Ghana stated, “We should rather be afraid of getting diseases from domestic animals that we feed with lots of chemicals; bushmeat is far healthier.” These perceptions mirror those reported by Onyekuru et al. [ 48 ] among residents of Nsukka and Egbo-Etti in Enugu State, Nigeria, who similarly dismissed the risk of Ebola transmission through bushmeat, attributing infection instead to direct contact with infected individuals. The reported post-COVID-19 decline in hunting was more commonly attributed to wildlife depletion than health concerns. Most hunters indicated that the primary deterrent to hunting was not the pandemic itself, but the increasing scarcity of wildlife in the forests. In southern Ghana, this decline in animal populations was commonly attributed to habitat degradation driven by farming, logging, and mining. As one key informant in southern Ghana noted, “We have converted most of our lands to farms and mining places—where is the forest for animals to live in?” This observation supports earlier findings by Brashares et al. [ 49 ], who identified habitat destruction and hunting as the principal threats to wildlife survival in Ghana. In contrast, most hunters in northern Ghana reported that the main impact of COVID-19 was the restriction of movement, which disrupted their market linkages—particularly with customers from southern Ghana who typically travel north to purchase bushmeat. In the aftermath of the outbreak, hunting was largely limited to subsistence purposes, with commercial hunting activities declining significantly. While McNamara et al. [ 8 ] projected an increase in hunting in response to pandemic-induced job losses and declining incomes, the findings from this study suggest a different trend in Ghana. Rather than an upsurge, hunting activities declined, largely due to reduced commercial demand and a general depletion of wildlife populations in traditional hunting areas. These findings suggest that conservation-related factors are more salient behavioral drivers than public health campaigns in matters relating to hunting and the bushmeat industry in Ghana. This invites a re-evaluation of disease risk communication strategies in Ghana, advocating for an integrated “One Health” approach that aligns public health, ecological sustainability, and cultural understanding [ 50 ]. Conclusion This study demonstrates that bushmeat-related behaviors in Ghana are shaped not solely by knowledge or awareness of zoonotic disease risks, but by a complex interplay of cultural norms, economic imperatives, religious beliefs, and ecological constraints. Interventions must therefore be multidimensional, context-specific, and grounded in the lived realities of local populations. The findings have significant implications for zoonotic disease prevention strategies. Public health interventions must move beyond didactic risk communication to embrace culturally responsive, participatory approaches. For instance, incorporating traditional leadership structures, religious institutions, and local knowledge holders could enhance the legitimacy and uptake of health advisories in Ghana. Additionally, policies promoting alternative livelihoods and protein sources must be attuned to local economic realities and cultural tastes to reduce reliance on bushmeat effectively. Moreover, the ecological lens remains crucial. Declining wildlife populations were a key reason for reduced hunting, suggesting that conservation policies may inadvertently reduce zoonotic risk. Thus, integrating wildlife conservation with health surveillance could yield dual benefits in biodiversity preservation and disease prevention. Through such integrated approaches, meaningful and sustainable change can be achieved in mitigating future zoonotic outbreaks. Declarations Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the A Rocha Ghana office in Kyebi, Ghana, for providing baseline information upon which the study was designed. The authors also thank the village leaders of Ahwenease, Sagyimase, Saaman, Akwadum, Dompem, Larabanga, Senyon, Kananto, Grupe, and Kabampe, for permitting the research to be conducted in their communities. Author contributions: H.A and B.O.K designed the study, collected data, analyzed and interpreted data and wrote the first draft. Z.A.I made a major contribution in writing the manuscript, reading the final manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Funding : There was funding for this work. Availability of data and materials: The authors declare that the data used in this study can be obtained upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. Ethics approval and consent to participate : The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research – Forestry Research Institute of Ghana, CSIR-FORIG. This was done in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. At the field, we explained the purpose of the study to all respondents and key informants and asked their consent to participate voluntarily. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any point of the interview without any consequences. Consent for publication : All participants in this study were anonymous and they were informed about the intention of the investigators to publish the work. They all gave verbal consent for the publication. Competing interests : The authors declare no competing interests. References Washburn S. Hunting and human evolution. In: Washburn SL. The study of human evolution. London: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 39–56. Fa JE, Funk SM, Nasi R. Hunting wildlife in the tropics and subtropics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. Coad L, Fa JE, Abernethy K, van Vliet N, Santamaria C, Wilkie D, et al. Toward a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR; 2019. Available from: https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BCoad1901.pdf McNamara J, Fa E, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y. Understanding drivers of urban wild meat demand in a Ghanaian market. Biol Conserv. 2019;239:108291. Davies G. Bushmeat and international development. Conserv Biol. 2002;16(3):587–9. Milner-Gulland EJ, Bennett EL. Wild meat: the bigger picture. Trends Ecol Evol. 2003;18(7):351–7. Bannor RK, Oppong-Kyeremeh H, Kuwornu JKM. Examining the link between the theory of planned behavior and bushmeat consumption in Ghana. J Sustain For. 2022;41(8):745–67. McNamara J, Robinson EJZ, Abernethy K, Iponga MD, Sackey HN, Wright JH, et al. COVID-19, systemic crisis, and possible implications for the wild meat trade in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ Resour Econ. 2020;76(4):1045–66. Alexander JS, McNamara J, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G, Milner-Gulland EJ. Trade-offs in wildlife consumption and human health in West Africa. Biol Conserv. 2015;189:70–7. Ordaz-Németh I, Arandjelovic M, Boesch L, Gatiso TT, Grimes T, Kuehl HS, et al. The socio-economic drivers of bushmeat consumption during the West African Ebola crisis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(3):e0005450. Craigie ID, Baillie JEM, Balmford A, Carbone C, Collen B, Green RE, et al. Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biol Conserv. 2010;143(9):2221–8. Ayivor JS, Gordon C, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y. Protected area management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: a case study of Digya National Park. Parks. 2013;19(1):37–50. Souto WMS, Barboza RRD, Mallo D, Ferreira FS, Mendonça LET, Vieira WLS, et al. Bushmeat consumption and risk perception during the 2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa: perceptions, behavior, and politics. Sci Total Environ. 2019;655:1601–10. Kamins AO, Rowcliffe JM, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y, Cunningham AA, Wood JL, Restif O. Characteristics and risk perceptions of Ghanaians potentially exposed to bat-borne zoonoses through bushmeat. EcoHealth. 2015;12(1):104–20. Hayman DT, Emmerich P, Yu M, Wang LF, Suu-Ire R, Fooks AR, et al. Long-term survival of an urban fruit bat seropositive for Ebola and Lagos bat viruses. PLoS One. 2010;5(8):e11978. Duonamou L, Konate A, Djossou S, Mensah GA, Xu J, Humle T. Consumer perceptions and reported wild and domestic meat and fish consumption behaviour during the Ebola epidemic in Guinea, West Africa. PeerJ. 2020;8:e9229. Bonwitt J, Dawson M, Kandeh M, Ansumana R, Sahr F, Brown H, et al. Unintended consequences of the 'bushmeat ban' in West Africa during the 2013–2016 Ebola virus disease epidemic. Soc Sci Med. 2018;200:166–73. Friant S, Paige SB, Goldberg TL. Drivers of bushmeat hunting and perceptions of zoonoses in Nigerian hunting communities. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(5):e0003792. Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, Garry RF. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Med. 2020;26(4):450–2. Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579:270–3. Chausson AM, Rowcliffe JM, Escouflaire L, Wieland M, Wright JH. Understanding the sociocultural drivers of urban bushmeat consumption for behaviour change interventions in Pointe Noire, Republic of Congo. Hum Ecol. 2019;47(2):179–91. Drury R, Homewood K, Randall S. Less is more: the potential of qualitative approaches in conservation research. Anim Conserv. 2011;14(1):18–24. Brittain S. Why Eat Wild Meat? Local food choices, food security and desired design features of wild meat alternative projects in Cameroon. London: IIED; 2021. Krauss A. Geography and the Tale of Two Ghanas: The North–South Divide. In External Influences and the Educational Landscape: Analysis of Political, Economic, Geographic, Health and Demographic Factors in Ghana 2012 Oct 30 (pp. 39–54). New York, NY: Springer New York. Dickson KB, Benneh G. A new geography of Ghana . 3rd ed. London: Longman; 1995. Nukunya GK. Tradition and change in Ghana: An introduction to sociology . 2nd ed. Accra: Ghana Universities Press; 2003. Agyei RK. Socio-ecological assessment of hunting within the Atewa Range Forest Reserve landscape [BSc Thesis]. Kumasi: Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology; 2021. Lindsell J, Agyei R, Bosu D, Decher J, Hawthorne W, Marshall C, et al. The biodiversity of Atewa forest. Accra: A Rocha Ghana; 2019. Available from: https://ghana.arocha.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2015/07/Biodiversity-of-Atewa-A-Rocha.pdf Schep S, Beukering P, Brander L, Wolfs E. The economic value of the Atewa Forest, Ghana. The Netherlands: Institute for Environmental Studies; 2016. Mole National Park (2011) Mole National Park Management Plan 2011–2016. Accra, Ghana: Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission of Ghana. Burton AC, Sam MK, Kpelle DG, Balangtaa C, Buedi EB, Brashares JS. Evaluating persistence and its predictors in a West African carnivore community. Biol Conserv. 2011;144(9):2344–53. Jachmann H. Illegal wildlife use and protected area management in Ghana. Biol Conserv. 2008;141(7):1906–18. Henderson RH, Sundaresan T. Cluster sampling to assess immunization coverage: a review of experience with a simplified sampling method. Bull World Health Organ. 1982;60(2):253–60. Bostoen K, Chalabi Z. Optimization of household survey sampling without sample frames. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(3):751–5. Chao A, Chiu CH, Hsieh TC. Proposing a resolution to debates on diversity partitioning. Ecology. 2012;93(9):2037–51. Grbich C. Qualitative research in health: An introduction. London: Sage; 1999. Kumar K. Conducting key informant interviews in developing countries. Washington, DC: Agency for International Development; 1989. Ghana Statistical Service (2021) Ghana 2021 population and housing census general report volumе за: population of regions and districts. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service Mbete RA, Banga-Mboko H, Racey P, Mfoukou-Ntsakala A, Nganga I, Vermeulen C, Doucet JL, Hornick JL, Leroy P. Household bushmeat consumption in Brazzaville, the Republic of the Congo. Tropical Conservation Science. 2011;4(2):187–202. Van Vliet N, Nasi R. Hunting for livelihoods in northeast Gabon: patterns, evolution, and sustainability. Ecol Soc. 2008;13(2):33. Schotte S, Danquah M, Osei RD, Sen K. The labour market impact of COVID-19 lockdowns: Evidence from Ghana. Journal of African Economies. 2023;32(Supplement_2):ii10-33. Sarfo AK, Karuppannan S. Application of geospatial technologies in the COVID-19 fight of Ghana. Transactions of the Indian National Academy of Engineering. 2020;5(2):193–204. Nasi R, Taber AV, Van Vliet N. Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review. 2011;13(3):355–68. Dennis-Antwi JA, Ohene-Frempong K, Anie KA, Dzikunu H, Agyare VA, Boadu RO, Antwi JS, Asafo MK, Anim-Boamah O, Asubonteng AK, Agyei S. Relation between religious perspectives and views on sickle cell disease research and associated public health interventions in Ghana. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2018 Sep 1:1–7. Koenig HG. Religion, spirituality, and health: The research and clinical implications. ISRN Psychiatry. 2012;2012:278730. Kümpel NF, Milner-Gulland EJ, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G. Impact of gun-hunting on diurnal primates in continental Equatorial Guinea. International journal of Primatology. 2008;29(4):1065–82. Wolfe ND, Daszak P, Kilpatrick AM, Burke DS. Bushmeat hunting, deforestation, and prediction of zoonotic disease emergence. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(12):1822–7. Onyekuru NA, Ume CO, Ezea CP, Chukwuma Ume NN (2020) Effects of Ebola virus disease outbreak on bush meat enterprise and environmental health risk behavior among households in south-east Nigeria. The journal of primary prevention, 41: 603–618. Brashares JS, Golden CD, Weinbaum KZ, Barrett CB, Okello GV. Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108(34):13931-6. Destoumieux-Garzón D, Mavingui P, Boetsch G, Boissier J, Darriet F, Duboz P, et al. The One Health Concept: 10 Years Old and a Long Road Ahead. Front Vet Sci. 2018;5:14. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 28 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 28 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 16 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 07 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 07 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 05 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-7304225\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":498830403,\"identity\":\"c28b16ea-8c6f-40c5-9876-efbd20c87945\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Haruna Abukari\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University for Development Studies\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Haruna\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Abukari\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":498830404,\"identity\":\"0458df1c-7c80-489b-9af8-b97c32200774\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Bright O. Kankam\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"CSIR-Forestry Research Institute of Ghana, KNUST\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Bright\",\"middleName\":\"O.\",\"lastName\":\"Kankam\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":498830405,\"identity\":\"e3cd20f0-09d4-4e3d-99d8-2802aacad816\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Ziblim A. Imoro\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University for Development Studies\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Ziblim\",\"middleName\":\"A.\",\"lastName\":\"Imoro\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-08-05 22:38:11\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7304225/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7304225/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[{\"content\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-025-00836-7\",\"type\":\"published\",\"date\":\"2025-11-27T15:58:21+00:00\"}],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":89070600,\"identity\":\"dd177b26-441b-454e-8493-53604c7a23fe\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-08-14 11:05:44\",\"extension\":\"jpg\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":59319,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eMap of Ghana (A) showing the location of Mole National Park (B) and Atewa Range Forest Reserve (C). Purple dots represent study communities.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Picture1.jpg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7304225/v1/070971673839a8db788a8f3f.jpg\"},{\"id\":89070599,\"identity\":\"d3db9d93-bbb0-48c1-ba9a-6401f80d602e\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-08-14 11:05:44\",\"extension\":\"jpg\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":124757,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003ePerceived most important routes of zoonotic disease transmission through game\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Picture2.jpg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7304225/v1/55cb6331b06ba29579a7f530.jpg\"},{\"id\":89070602,\"identity\":\"9fd1925c-85e6-4596-8bc3-056338271e07\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-08-14 11:05:44\",\"extension\":\"jpg\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"Figure 3\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":86295,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eHunting before and after the outbreak of COVID-19\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Picture3.jpg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7304225/v1/e8b3f59d2d1d5abe07872ce9.jpg\"},{\"id\":97178825,\"identity\":\"c3aaf5c8-4524-4c42-a3fa-684849776376\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-12-01 16:13:49\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1051398,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7304225/v1/a83eb0d5-d703-43b1-929a-e2234639deb5.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eRegional Dynamics of Zoonotic Risk Perception and Wildlife Use in Ghana\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eHunting wild animals for food has existed for many cneturies [1] and has provided food and supplementary income for millions of people in most rural communities in West Africa [2 – 4]. Although hunting is mostly done in rural areas, the consumption of bushmeat is common in both rural and urban areas [5 – 7].\\u0026nbsp;In Ghana, bushmeat is widely regarded as a delicacy, contributing to consistently high levels of consumer demand. For instance, the market price of a kilogram of Maxwell’s duiker (\\u003cem\\u003ePhilantomba monticola\\u003c/em\\u003e) or brush-tailed porcupine (\\u003cem\\u003eAtherurus\\u003c/em\\u003e spp.) can exceed that of beef by as much as 108%, yet this significant price differential does not appear to deter consumption [4, 7, 9]. The increasing dependence on bushmeat as a free resource continues to threaten biodiversity in most protected areas due to overhunting [10, 11]. Coad et al. [3] have identified unsustainable levels of hunting as a major challenge to wildlife conservation. In Ghana, stable populations of wildlife are present only in forest reserves, national parks and other protected areas [12]. Increasing hunting pressure therefore threatens biodiversity conservation as well as human health with potential outbreak of zoonotic diseases.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePeople may have preferences for bushmeat based on culture and traditions [13]; however, they may be unaware of the health risk associated with harvesting and eating bushmeat [8, 14]. For instance, \\u003cem\\u003eEidolon helvum\\u003c/em\\u003e, a fruit bat that is widely eaten in West Africa, hosts several zoonotic pathogens including the deadly Ebola virus [15]. However, it may not be prudent to ban bushmeat to safeguard public health because bushmeat underpins food security and livelihoods in some countries [8]. Indeed, bans on the bushmeat trade after the Ebola outbreak in West Africa from 2013–2016 did not stop it but pushed it underground [8, 16 – 18]. This suggests that a ban on the use of bushmeat for any reason may not be effective.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCircumstances surrounding the outbreak of COVID-19 put a spotlight on the potential risk of zoonoses transfer from wild animals to humans through bushmeat procurement and consumption. Public education messages in Ghana advised people to refrain from capturing wild animals and consuming bushmeat since the proximal origin of the virus was suspected to be from the wildlife\\u0026nbsp;[19, 20].\\u0026nbsp;In this regard, it would be useful to establish an in-depth understanding of the perception of hunters and bushmeat consummers on zoonoses transmission. We tried to address this knowledge gap by using a \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;mix of both qualitative and quantitative approaches\\u0026nbsp;[21, 22] to investigate how hunting and bushmeat consumption behaviour in Ghana may have changed following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the perceptions of bushmeat users and hunters may help in the development of interventions that could influence behaviour change\\u0026nbsp;[21, 23]. This may engender positive attitudes towards wildlife conservation. The COVID-19 pandemic and Ebola virus diseases were only used as reference events to help respondents link zoonotic diseases and the bushmeat industry. This is because Ghanaians have had public health education on COVID-19 and Ebola viral diseases.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe study compared public perceptions in the northern and southern regions of Ghana, which differ significantly in ecological characteristics and sociocultural structures [24]. The northern region is predominantly characterized by savanna vegetation, whereas the southern region is largely composed of rainforest ecosystems. These ecological distinctions are reflected in the variation of wildlife species and hunting practices across the two zones [25]. Additionally, household-level economic conditions and cultural beliefs related to protein consumption vary between the regions [26]. The comparison was further justified by the consistently higher incidence of COVID-19 cases reported in southern Ghana compared to the northern region. These ecological, economic, and cultural differences are likely to influence local perceptions of wildlife-associated zoonotic risks and related behavioral practices that could facilitate zoonotic spillover.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe specific objectives of the study are to: i) assess the perceptions of residents on wildlife-related zoonosis as a threat to human health, ii) assess the impact of COVID-19 hunting and bushmeat consumption in Ghana, and iii) assess the precautionary measures hunters may take to protect themselves from wildlife-related zoonosis\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Methods\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eStudy sites\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe study was conducted in Ghana around two key protected areas\\u0026mdash;the Mole National Park (MNP) and the Atewa Range Forest Reserve (ARFR) (Figure 1). The two protected areas (PAs) were strategically selected to cover nationwide characteristics of hunting and bushmeat patronage in Ghana. The MNP is in the savanna ecological zone in northern Ghana, while the ARFR is in the rainforest ecological zone in southern Ghana. Bushmeat serves as an important source of protein and income for rural households in Ghana [27] including those in the selected comunities. \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eThe Atewa Range Forest Reserve\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe ARFR comprises a forest reserve (a protected area) and contiguous off-reserve areas of the same vegetation type. The vegetation is a moist semi-deciduous forest type and it covers an area of 23,663 ha. The area experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern. The rains usually start in April and end in June, and again from September to November, giving an annual average of about 1,600\\u0026nbsp;mm. The average temperatures are between 24\\u003csup\\u003e0\\u003c/sup\\u003eC and 29\\u003csup\\u003e0\\u003c/sup\\u003eC. ARFR is a strip of unique upland forest with rich faunal diversity which includes 239 bird species, 69 mammals, 40 amphibians, and 14 reptiles [28]. It is also home to a large diversity of plants, including 656 species of vascular plants\\u0026nbsp;[29].\\u0026nbsp;Various official classifications have been given to ARF due to its importance to the country and the world. It was designated a national forest reserve in 1926, a Special Biological Protection Area in 1994, a Hill Sanctuary in 1995, and one of Ghana\\u0026rsquo;s 30 Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas (GSBAs) in 1999. The ARFR was again listed as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by BirdLife International in 2001.\\u0026nbsp;Among the various ecosystem services provided by the ARFR, local communities near and far harvest non-timber forest products such as snails, honey, mushroom, rattan, herbs, and bushmeat. The value of bushmeat extracted from the ARF annually is estimated at 5.2 million United States dollars [29]. Indeed, this level of exploitation puts pressure on the ARFR [27].\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eThe Mole National Park\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eMole National Park is located in the savannah ecological zone in northern Ghana. It is the largest wildlife reserve in Ghana covering some 4840\\u0026nbsp;km\\u0026sup2;. The savannah in northern Ghana experiences a unimodal rainfall pattern where almost half of the year (from May to October) is wet and the other half (November to April) is dry. The average rainfall is 1100 mm with the peak of the rainy season happening in July and August. The MNP is dominated by an open savannah woodland type of vegetation, where tree cover varies from 5% to 65% and averages at 30%. There are at least 94 mammal species, over 300 bird species, 9 amphibian species, and 33 reptile species in the MNP [30].\\u0026nbsp;The park is surrounded by 33 communities and the commonest livelihood activity for people in these communities is crop farming. Non-timber forest products in the MNP area include bushmeat, honey, fuelwood, grass for roofing, rafters, herbs, fruits, and nuts. Illegal hunting is common in MNP [31, 32].\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eSampling strategy\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWe used two sampling techniques: household survey and key informant interviews. Five communities, each near the MNP and ARFR were selected based on the intensity of hunting activities. We used records from the staff of the two protected areas to select the first five communities with the highest number of reported poaching and communal hunting activities. The selected communities include Larabanga, Senyon, Kananto, Grupe, and Kabampe for the MNP; and Dompem, Ahwenease, Sagyimase, Saaman and Akwadum for the ARFR (Figure\\u0026nbsp;1).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eThe household survey\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe Expanded Programme of Immunisation (EPI) sampling [33]was used to select households from the selected communities. The EPI method was used because of difficulty in getting the sample frame (the number of total households) in communities within the study areas [34, 35]. This is because housing structures in most of the communities did not have identification numbers that could be used for simple random sampling. Per the EPI procedure,\\u0026nbsp;the selected communities were considered clusters, and the number of household samples taken from a cluster was proportionate to the size of the cluster [34]. In a chosen cluster, (i) a location was selected near the centre of the community, (ii) a\\u0026nbsp;random direction was then determined by\\u0026nbsp;spinning a pen, and (iii) a random household\\u0026nbsp;along the chosen direction pointing outwards the\\u0026nbsp;centre of the community was selected to start with. In the subsequent\\u0026nbsp;steps, which were carried out iteratively, the closest household to the one determined in the previous step is\\u0026nbsp;chosen and checked for compliance with the inclusion criteria.\\u0026nbsp;The process is repeated until the required number of\\u0026nbsp;households is surveyed [34].\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe survey was conducted from November to December 2020. Enumerators were recruited and given one-day training on the EPI method and how to administer the questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed in English because all enumerators were fluent in both English and the local languages (Twi, Gonja and Kamara) spoken in the study areas. The definition of bushmeat was given in the local parlance to ensure that respondents understood exactly what was referred to as bushmeat in this study.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eThe key informant interviews\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe key informant interview targeted hunters in the selected communities to gather information on hunting practices and precautionary measures towards the prevention of zoonotic diseases from their game. The snowball sampling technique [36] was used to get informants. We specifically used the linear snowball sampling technique where we identified the first interviewee through a tip-off. The first informant then volunteered information about the next potential informant and the process repeated until the responses became repetitive and patterns emerged. Where a potential informant would not grant an interview, researchers would fall back on a previous informant to suggest a new potential informant. We got 31 informants (hunters) in the communities near the MNP and 22 hunters in the communities near the ARFR (Table). According to Kumar [37], 15\\u0026ndash;35 informants are enough for a theme under discussion.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe interviews were conducted face-to-face from December 2020 to January 2021. The interview guide comprised three sections: the introduction, key questions, and conclusion. The introduction involved a self-introduction of the interviewer and an introduction of the project to explain the purpose of the project to the interviewee. Other aspects of the introduction included establishing the credibility of the interviewer and the interview process and an explanation of why the informant\\u0026rsquo;s cooperation is important for the success of the project. The subsequent sections had a checklist of key questions that covered thematic areas to answer the objectives of the study. The checklist covered questions on the demographic information of hunters, hunting activities before and during COVID-19, precautions against contracting zoonotic diseases from game, perceptions on the use of personal protective equipment during hunting, perception of the impact of COVID-19 on bushmeat trade, and the decline in hunting activities in Ghana. The consent of respondents was sought before any interview was conducted.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eData analysis\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eData was analysed using SPSS version 20 and Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics have been presented in percentages, tables and graphs. Chi-square test was used to determine the difference between some demographic variables (gender, education and occupation) for the group of respondents in northern Ghana and those in southern Ghana. Chi-square test was also used to determine if there were significant differences between the opinions of the two groups of respondents regarding meat preference, and bushmeat patronage before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 1). Student \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-test was used to test significant differences between ages and household sizes of the two groups of respondents. \\u0026ldquo;Age\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;household size\\u0026rdquo; were measured as continuous variables.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eRespondent Demographics\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eA total of 335 respondents participated in the study, comprising 178 from northern Ghana and 157 from southern Ghana. The mean age of respondents in southern Ghana (M\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;44.7, SD\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;16.4) was significantly higher than that of respondents in northern Ghana (M\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;36.7, SD\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;14.2), \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(315)\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4.816, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001. Age ranged from 18 to 84 years in southern Ghana and 18 to 86 years in northern Ghana.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eRespondents from northern Ghana reported significantly larger household sizes (M\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;9.6, SD\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;6.7) compared to their southern counterparts (M\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;5.2, SD\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3.2), \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e(323) = -7.379, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001. Household sizes in northern Ghana ranged from 1 to 50, while those in southern Ghana ranged from 1 to 17.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eEducational attainment varied markedly between the regions. Ninety-four percent of southern respondents had received some form of formal education, compared to 66% in the north, χ\\u0026sup2;(1, N\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;335)\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;35.864, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001. Gender distribution did not differ significantly between regions, with males representing 63% of respondents in the north and 58% in the south. Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e summarizes the demographic and key categorical variables.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eDemographic and other variables showing difference between respondents in northern Ghana and southern Ghana\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/caption\\u003e\\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cthead\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eNorthern Ghana\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e(n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;178)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eSouthern Ghana\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e(n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;157)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/thead\\u003e\\u003ctbody\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eVariables (continuous)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eMean (SD)\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eMean (SD)\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eT\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eP\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAge\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e36.7 \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003e14.2\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e44.7 \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003e16.4\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e4.816\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e˂.001*\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eHousehold size\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e9.6 \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003e6.7\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e5.2 \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003e3.2\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e7.379\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e˂.001*\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eVariables (categorical)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e%\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e%\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eX\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e2\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eP\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eGender\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e0.859\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e.208\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e37\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e42\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMale\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e63\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e58\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eEducation\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e35.864\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e˂.001*\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eLiterate\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e66\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e94\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eNonliterate\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e34\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e6\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eOccupation\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e2.052\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e.093\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eFarmer\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e51\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e43\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eother\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e49\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e57\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eMeat preference\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e0.624\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e.360\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eBushmeat\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e22\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e24\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eOther protein sources\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e78\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e76\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eknowledge of the origin of zoonotic diseases (e.g., Ebola, COVID-19)\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e0.117\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e.413\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eYes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e70\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e69\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eNo\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e30\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e31\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eConsumption of bushmeat before COVID-19 pandemics\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e16.224\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e.003*\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eYes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e81\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e62\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eNo\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e19\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e38\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eConsumption of bushmeat after COVID-19 pandemics\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e27.226\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e˂.001*\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eYes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e61\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e33\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eNo\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e39\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e77\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\u003c/colgroup\\u003e\\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003ePerceptions and Practices Related to Bushmeat and Zoonotic Diseases\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eApproximately 70% of respondents across both regions reported awareness of the connection between wildlife and zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19. This awareness was largely acquired through mass media\\u0026mdash;97% in northern Ghana and 85% in southern Ghana. Despite this awareness, bushmeat consumption remained widespread. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, bushmeat consumption was higher in the north (81%) than in the south (62%), χ\\u0026sup2;(1, N\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;325)\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;16.224, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.003. Post-pandemic consumption declined in both regions but remained significantly higher in northern Ghana (61%) than in the south (33%), χ\\u0026sup2;(1, N\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;325)\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;27.226, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eWhen given equal access to bushmeat and other protein sources, 78% of northern and 76% of southern respondents indicated a preference for bushmeat, suggesting cultural or dietary predispositions toward wild game, though this difference was not statistically significant, χ\\u0026sup2;(1, N\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;325)\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.624, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.360.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eNotably, while over 80% of respondents acknowledged the health threat posed by zoonotic diseases, including COVID-19, this concern did not appear to significantly deter bushmeat consumption. This may reflect a prevailing belief that zoonotic infections are primarily transmitted through human-to-human contact rather than animal-to-human interactions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eRegional differences emerged regarding perceived routes of disease transmission from wildlife. Respondents in northern Ghana commonly cited the capture and handling of live animals as the primary transmission route, whereas those in southern Ghana more often identified the consumption of inadequately cooked bushmeat as the major risk (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). Religious beliefs also influenced risk perception: 58% of northern respondents and 80% of southern respondents agreed with the statement, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;God protects me so I cannot get diseases from eating bushmeat\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e, χ\\u0026sup2;(1, N\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;325)\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;18.175, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001, underscoring the role of faith in shaping health behaviors.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eHunting Practices and Disease Prevention Among Hunters\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eInterviews were conducted with 53 hunters (31 from northern Ghana and 22 from southern Ghana), all of whom also engaged in farming or petty trading. On average, hunters had six years of experience, and all were male\\u0026mdash;consistent with the gendered nature of hunting in Ghana (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). Most hunters pursued game for both household consumption and supplementary income, with regional variation: 82% in the north and 68% in the south.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eDespite their occupational exposure, none of the hunters reported using personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, masks, or protective clothing. Explanations ranged from beliefs that PPEs are impractical in forest settings, unaffordable, or irrelevant to hunting activities (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). Cultural and spiritual beliefs were also cited, with some hunters claiming spiritual protection or traditional medicine as sufficient safeguards against disease.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eHunters\\u0026rsquo; perceptions about using personal protective equipment when hunting\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/caption\\u003e\\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cthead\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eNorthern Ghana\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eSouthern Ghana\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/thead\\u003e\\u003ctbody\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; PPEs are not suitable for the bush.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; PPEs are for health workers and not people who work in the bush.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; You cannot walk freely or run to chase animals when in PPEs.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; We are farmers and sometimes we go hunting after farm work. So, whatever we wear to the farm is what we use for hunting.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; You cannot get diseases just by shooting and slaughtering animals.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; You only have to be careful so you do not get a bite or scratch from the animal. That way you cannot get any disease from them.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; We protect ourselves spiritually and it covers everything\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; When you shoot or trap a sick animal, you have to leave it in the bush so that you do not transmit its disease to humans.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; We do not have the money to buy those equipment.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; Hunting is not like killing domestic animals, sometimes we go days without killing. So, you cannot be wearing PPEs around when you are not sure of getting any animal.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; We do not kill sick animals or pick dead ones, we only kill healthy animals, and those ones do not have the pathogen to transfer to us.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; When you dress like a doctor or engineer to go hunting, you may not kill any animal because the animals will notice you early and run away.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; We have some local medicine to apply when we get hurt by animals.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026not; During the \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026lsquo;closed season\\u0026rsquo;*\\u003c/em\\u003e for hunting some people still go hunting. So, if they wear some \\u0026ldquo;uniform\\u0026rdquo; [PPEs], they can easily be identified and get arrested.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\u003c/colgroup\\u003e\\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e* = In Ghana, the \\\"Close Season\\\" is a period in which hunting of wild animals is prohibited except the grasscutter. It is observed annually from August 1st to December 1st.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, 72% of hunters in northern Ghana and 51% in southern Ghana reported a decline in hunting activity (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, contrary to expectations, this decline was attributed more to wildlife population depletion than to health concerns. This suggests that ecological factors, rather than disease risk, are the primary constraint on hunting activities in both regions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study reveals regionally distinctive demographic, cultural, and behavioral dynamics that shape perceptions and practices surrounding bushmeat consumption and zoonotic disease risk in Ghana. While both northern and southern Ghanaian communities demonstrate a baseline awareness of zoonotic disease transmission, the findings underscore some disparities in demographic profiles, educational access, household structure, and local knowledge systems that mediate their interpretations of zoonotic disease risk and behavioral responses.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eSociodemographic factors and implications for disease risk\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe demographic divergence between northern Ghana and southern Ghana is particularly pronounced in household size, educational attainment, and age. Respondents in northern Ghana reported significantly larger households and lower educational levels, consistent with earlier demographic profiles of Ghana\\u0026rsquo;s savannah ecological zone [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e38\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Respondents from larger households (comprising ten or more members), predominantly located in northern Ghana, reported a higher frequency of bushmeat consumption compared to their counterparts in southern Ghana, where smaller household sizes are more common. This pattern may be attributed to the increased likelihood of at least one member engaging in hunting activities in larger households, thereby enhancing access to bushmeat. These findings are consistent with those of Mbete et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e39\\u003c/span\\u003e], who observed that households with ten or more members in Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, exhibited significantly higher levels of bushmeat consumption than smaller households with nine or fewer members.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThese sociodemographic factors are also known to influence risk perception, health-seeking behavior, and information access [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e40\\u003c/span\\u003e]. For instance, larger households with lower literacy levels as it occurred in northern Ghana, may constrain comprehension of risk narratives thereby lowering the success of educational campaigns aimed at behavioral change.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eBushmeat Consumption after COVID-19 Pandemic\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eDespite widespread awareness (approximately 70%) of zoonotic disease risks, the study found that bushmeat consumption remained rampant, particularly in northern Ghana. The disparity may be attributed to both ecological and cultural factors. Hunting tends to be more feasible in savanna landscapes due to greater visibility and ease of movement compared to the denser vegetation and more challenging terrain of rainforest areas. Furthermore, cultural practices in northern Ghana may contribute to this pattern, as hunting, particularly in the form of annual communal hunts organized between February and March, is deeply embedded in the traditions of many ethnic groups in the region. During this period, bushmeat becomes relatively more accessible to both rural and urban households. This resilience of bushmeat consumption, even in the face of pandemic-induced anxieties, suggests that cultural affinity for bushmeat is deeply entrenched and resistant to short-term health interventions in Ghana.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMoreover, perceptions surrounding zoonotic disease risks appear to differ between the two regions. In northern Ghana, nearly two-thirds of respondents continued their regular bushmeat consumption habits following the outbreak of COVID-19 (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e), suggesting limited behavioral change in response to the pandemic. This observation likely reflects prevailing beliefs about the presence and severity of COVID-19 in the region during the early stages of the outbreak. Reported case numbers support this perception: between March and May 2020, only 107 COVID-19 cases were recorded in the northern region (population 8,538,345), in contrast to 5,989 cases in the southern region, which had a population of 21,782,132 [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e41\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e42\\u003c/span\\u003e]. These differences in disease burden may have influenced the risk perceptions and subsequent dietary behaviors of northern residents towards bushmeat. The finding aligns with earlier studies that have identified bushmeat not only as a dietary preference but as a cultural symbol and socio-economic necessity [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e10\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e40\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eEqually important is the finding that most respondents, when given equal access to bushmeat and other protein sources, still favored bushmeat. This preference, although not statistically different between regions, further complicates efforts to reduce demand through public health campaigns alone. The preference may be informed by taste, cultural beliefs, or perceptions of bushmeat as a healthier source of protein to processed meats, a finding corroborated by earlier studies across West Africa [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e43\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eRisk perception underpinned by religion and cultural rationalization\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003ePerhaps one of the more revealing insights from this study is the religious framing of zoonotic risk. A significantly higher proportion of southern respondents (80%) than northern respondents (58%) believed that divine protection shields them from disease risks associated with bushmeat consumption. This perhaps explain why after any zoonotic disease scare, Ghanaians would return to consume bushmeat, trusting on divine protection against any diseases. Most Ghanaians are religious [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e44\\u003c/span\\u003e] and would put their faith in God or deities for solutions to their life problems including health-related concerns. It is an ethos of Ghanaians to take their fears and hopes or anything that affects well-being, to the spiritual realm for a solution, and COVID-19 was not an exception. To explore this dimension, a question was included in the study to assess perceptions of zoonotic disease spread within the spiritual worldview. Responses from both Christian and Muslim participants indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic was widely interpreted as an act of God, a form of divine retribution intended to punish humanity for moral transgressions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThis health behavior reinforced by religious convictions is well documented in sub-Saharan Africa and presents both challenges and opportunities for public health outreach [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e45\\u003c/span\\u003e]. It reflects a form of cultural rationalization that can undermine evidence-based risk messaging unless interventions are carefully framed to respect and incorporate religious and cultural values.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eHunting Practices\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe gendered nature of hunting, exclusively undertaken by men, was consistent with broader West African patterns [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e46\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Most informants (hunters) across both northern and southern Ghana reported engaging in hunting as a secondary livelihood activity, primarily to supplement household protein needs and income derived from their primary occupation \\u0026ndash; farming. This aligns with [Kmpel et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e46\\u003c/span\\u003e], who observed that hunting significantly contributes to household income in rural Ghanaian communities. Typically, hunting is pursued during periods of reduced agricultural activity, serving as a seasonal income strategy for farming households. Given that the majority of rural dwellers in Ghana are employed in agriculture, such diversification is critical for sustaining livelihoods.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eHowever, the lack of precautionary measures to prevent zoonotic disease among hunters across both regions signals a dangerous gap in occupational safety practices. Hunters articulated several reasons, ranging from cost and impracticality to spiritual beliefs and legal risks during the \\u0026lsquo;Close Season\\u0026rsquo;, for not using PPE. These perceptions reveal a combination of logistical constraints and cultural heuristics that frame PPE as both inappropriate and counterproductive.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eImportantly, the dominant belief that healthy-looking animals cannot transmit diseases and that traditional medicine or spiritual protection suffices, are deeply problematic. Such narratives reflect ecological knowledge rooted in empirical observation but can dangerously obscure the asymptomatic nature of zoonotic pathogens in wild hosts [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e47\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Many hunters downplayed the health risks posed by wild animals, with some asserting that bushmeat is healthier than meat from domesticated animals treated with chemicals. One key informant from northern Ghana stated, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;We should rather be afraid of getting diseases from domestic animals that we feed with lots of chemicals; bushmeat is far healthier.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e These perceptions mirror those reported by Onyekuru et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e48\\u003c/span\\u003e] among residents of Nsukka and Egbo-Etti in Enugu State, Nigeria, who similarly dismissed the risk of Ebola transmission through bushmeat, attributing infection instead to direct contact with infected individuals.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe reported post-COVID-19 decline in hunting was more commonly attributed to wildlife depletion than health concerns. Most hunters indicated that the primary deterrent to hunting was not the pandemic itself, but the increasing scarcity of wildlife in the forests. In southern Ghana, this decline in animal populations was commonly attributed to habitat degradation driven by farming, logging, and mining. As one key informant in southern Ghana noted, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;We have converted most of our lands to farms and mining places\\u0026mdash;where is the forest for animals to live in?\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e This observation supports earlier findings by Brashares et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR49\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e49\\u003c/span\\u003e], who identified habitat destruction and hunting as the principal threats to wildlife survival in Ghana.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn contrast, most hunters in northern Ghana reported that the main impact of COVID-19 was the restriction of movement, which disrupted their market linkages\\u0026mdash;particularly with customers from southern Ghana who typically travel north to purchase bushmeat. In the aftermath of the outbreak, hunting was largely limited to subsistence purposes, with commercial hunting activities declining significantly. While McNamara et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e8\\u003c/span\\u003e] projected an increase in hunting in response to pandemic-induced job losses and declining incomes, the findings from this study suggest a different trend in Ghana. Rather than an upsurge, hunting activities declined, largely due to reduced commercial demand and a general depletion of wildlife populations in traditional hunting areas. These findings suggest that conservation-related factors are more salient behavioral drivers than public health campaigns in matters relating to hunting and the bushmeat industry in Ghana. This invites a re-evaluation of disease risk communication strategies in Ghana, advocating for an integrated \\u0026ldquo;One Health\\u0026rdquo; approach that aligns public health, ecological sustainability, and cultural understanding [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR50\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e50\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Conclusion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study demonstrates that bushmeat-related behaviors in Ghana are shaped not solely by knowledge or awareness of zoonotic disease risks, but by a complex interplay of cultural norms, economic imperatives, religious beliefs, and ecological constraints. Interventions must therefore be multidimensional, context-specific, and grounded in the lived realities of local populations. The findings have significant implications for zoonotic disease prevention strategies. Public health interventions must move beyond didactic risk communication to embrace culturally responsive, participatory approaches. For instance, incorporating traditional leadership structures, religious institutions, and local knowledge holders could enhance the legitimacy and uptake of health advisories in Ghana. Additionally, policies promoting alternative livelihoods and protein sources must be attuned to local economic realities and cultural tastes to reduce reliance on bushmeat effectively. Moreover, the ecological lens remains crucial. Declining wildlife populations were a key reason for reduced hunting, suggesting that conservation policies may inadvertently reduce zoonotic risk. Thus, integrating wildlife conservation with health surveillance could yield dual benefits in biodiversity preservation and disease prevention. Through such integrated approaches, meaningful and sustainable change can be achieved in mitigating future zoonotic outbreaks.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAcknowledgments:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eThe authors acknowledge the A Rocha Ghana office in Kyebi, Ghana, for providing baseline information upon which the study was designed. The authors also thank the village leaders of Ahwenease, Sagyimase, Saaman, Akwadum, Dompem, Larabanga, Senyon, Kananto, Grupe, and Kabampe, for permitting the research to be conducted in their communities.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthor contributions:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eH.A and B.O.K designed the study, collected data, analyzed and interpreted data and wrote the first draft. Z.A.I made a major contribution in writing the manuscript, reading the final manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFunding\\u003c/strong\\u003e: There was funding for this work.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eThe authors declare that the data used in this study can be obtained upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\\u003c/strong\\u003e: The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research \\u0026ndash; Forestry Research Institute of Ghana, CSIR-FORIG. This was done in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. At the field, we explained the purpose of the study to all respondents and key informants and asked their consent to participate voluntarily. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any point of the interview without any consequences.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eConsent for publication\\u003c/strong\\u003e: All participants in this study were anonymous and they were informed about the intention of the investigators to publish the work. They all gave verbal consent for the publication.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCompeting interests\\u003c/strong\\u003e: The authors declare no competing interests.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWashburn S. Hunting and human evolution. In: Washburn SL. The study of human evolution. London: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 39\\u0026ndash;56.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFa JE, Funk SM, Nasi R. Hunting wildlife in the tropics and subtropics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCoad L, Fa JE, Abernethy K, van Vliet N, Santamaria C, Wilkie D, et al. Toward a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR; 2019. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BCoad1901.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BCoad1901.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMcNamara J, Fa E, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y. Understanding drivers of urban wild meat demand in a Ghanaian market. Biol Conserv. 2019;239:108291.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDavies G. Bushmeat and international development. Conserv Biol. 2002;16(3):587\\u0026ndash;9.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMilner-Gulland EJ, Bennett EL. Wild meat: the bigger picture. Trends Ecol Evol. 2003;18(7):351\\u0026ndash;7.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBannor RK, Oppong-Kyeremeh H, Kuwornu JKM. Examining the link between the theory of planned behavior and bushmeat consumption in Ghana. J Sustain For. 2022;41(8):745\\u0026ndash;67.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMcNamara J, Robinson EJZ, Abernethy K, Iponga MD, Sackey HN, Wright JH, et al. COVID-19, systemic crisis, and possible implications for the wild meat trade in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ Resour Econ. 2020;76(4):1045\\u0026ndash;66.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAlexander JS, McNamara J, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G, Milner-Gulland EJ. Trade-offs in wildlife consumption and human health in West Africa. Biol Conserv. 2015;189:70\\u0026ndash;7.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOrdaz-N\\u0026eacute;meth I, Arandjelovic M, Boesch L, Gatiso TT, Grimes T, Kuehl HS, et al. The socio-economic drivers of bushmeat consumption during the West African Ebola crisis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(3):e0005450.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCraigie ID, Baillie JEM, Balmford A, Carbone C, Collen B, Green RE, et al. Large mammal population declines in Africa\\u0026rsquo;s protected areas. Biol Conserv. 2010;143(9):2221\\u0026ndash;8.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAyivor JS, Gordon C, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y. Protected area management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: a case study of Digya National Park. Parks. 2013;19(1):37\\u0026ndash;50.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSouto WMS, Barboza RRD, Mallo D, Ferreira FS, Mendon\\u0026ccedil;a LET, Vieira WLS, et al. Bushmeat consumption and risk perception during the 2013\\u0026ndash;2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa: perceptions, behavior, and politics. Sci Total Environ. 2019;655:1601\\u0026ndash;10.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKamins AO, Rowcliffe JM, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y, Cunningham AA, Wood JL, Restif O. Characteristics and risk perceptions of Ghanaians potentially exposed to bat-borne zoonoses through bushmeat. EcoHealth. 2015;12(1):104\\u0026ndash;20.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHayman DT, Emmerich P, Yu M, Wang LF, Suu-Ire R, Fooks AR, et al. Long-term survival of an urban fruit bat seropositive for Ebola and Lagos bat viruses. PLoS One. 2010;5(8):e11978.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDuonamou L, Konate A, Djossou S, Mensah GA, Xu J, Humle T. Consumer perceptions and reported wild and domestic meat and fish consumption behaviour during the Ebola epidemic in Guinea, West Africa. PeerJ. 2020;8:e9229.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBonwitt J, Dawson M, Kandeh M, Ansumana R, Sahr F, Brown H, et al. Unintended consequences of the 'bushmeat ban' in West Africa during the 2013\\u0026ndash;2016 Ebola virus disease epidemic. Soc Sci Med. 2018;200:166\\u0026ndash;73.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFriant S, Paige SB, Goldberg TL. Drivers of bushmeat hunting and perceptions of zoonoses in Nigerian hunting communities. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(5):e0003792.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAndersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, Garry RF. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Med. 2020;26(4):450\\u0026ndash;2.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579:270\\u0026ndash;3.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eChausson AM, Rowcliffe JM, Escouflaire L, Wieland M, Wright JH. Understanding the sociocultural drivers of urban bushmeat consumption for behaviour change interventions in Pointe Noire, Republic of Congo. Hum Ecol. 2019;47(2):179\\u0026ndash;91.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDrury R, Homewood K, Randall S. Less is more: the potential of qualitative approaches in conservation research. Anim Conserv. 2011;14(1):18\\u0026ndash;24.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBrittain S. Why Eat Wild Meat? Local food choices, food security and desired design features of wild meat alternative projects in Cameroon. London: IIED; 2021.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKrauss A. Geography and the Tale of Two Ghanas: The North\\u0026ndash;South Divide. In External Influences and the Educational Landscape: Analysis of Political, Economic, Geographic, Health and Demographic Factors in Ghana 2012 Oct 30 (pp. 39\\u0026ndash;54). New York, NY: Springer New York.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDickson KB, Benneh G. \\u003cem\\u003eA new geography of Ghana\\u003c/em\\u003e. 3rd ed. London: Longman; 1995.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNukunya GK. \\u003cem\\u003eTradition and change in Ghana: An introduction to sociology\\u003c/em\\u003e. 2nd ed. Accra: Ghana Universities Press; 2003.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAgyei RK. Socio-ecological assessment of hunting within the Atewa Range Forest Reserve landscape [BSc Thesis]. Kumasi: Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology; 2021.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLindsell J, Agyei R, Bosu D, Decher J, Hawthorne W, Marshall C, et al. The biodiversity of Atewa forest. Accra: A Rocha Ghana; 2019. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://ghana.arocha.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2015/07/Biodiversity-of-Atewa-A-Rocha.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://ghana.arocha.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2015/07/Biodiversity-of-Atewa-A-Rocha.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSchep S, Beukering P, Brander L, Wolfs E. The economic value of the Atewa Forest, Ghana. The Netherlands: Institute for Environmental Studies; 2016.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMole National Park (2011) Mole National Park Management Plan 2011\\u0026ndash;2016. Accra, Ghana: Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission of Ghana.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBurton AC, Sam MK, Kpelle DG, Balangtaa C, Buedi EB, Brashares JS. Evaluating persistence and its predictors in a West African carnivore community. Biol Conserv. 2011;144(9):2344\\u0026ndash;53.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJachmann H. Illegal wildlife use and protected area management in Ghana. Biol Conserv. 2008;141(7):1906\\u0026ndash;18.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHenderson RH, Sundaresan T. Cluster sampling to assess immunization coverage: a review of experience with a simplified sampling method. Bull World Health Organ. 1982;60(2):253\\u0026ndash;60.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBostoen K, Chalabi Z. Optimization of household survey sampling without sample frames. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(3):751\\u0026ndash;5.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eChao A, Chiu CH, Hsieh TC. Proposing a resolution to debates on diversity partitioning. Ecology. 2012;93(9):2037\\u0026ndash;51.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGrbich C. Qualitative research in health: An introduction. London: Sage; 1999.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKumar K. Conducting key informant interviews in developing countries. Washington, DC: Agency for International Development; 1989.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGhana Statistical Service (2021) Ghana 2021 population and housing census general report volumе за: population of regions and districts. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMbete RA, Banga-Mboko H, Racey P, Mfoukou-Ntsakala A, Nganga I, Vermeulen C, Doucet JL, Hornick JL, Leroy P. Household bushmeat consumption in Brazzaville, the Republic of the Congo. Tropical Conservation Science. 2011;4(2):187\\u0026ndash;202.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eVan Vliet N, Nasi R. Hunting for livelihoods in northeast Gabon: patterns, evolution, and sustainability. Ecol Soc. 2008;13(2):33.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSchotte S, Danquah M, Osei RD, Sen K. The labour market impact of COVID-19 lockdowns: Evidence from Ghana. Journal of African Economies. 2023;32(Supplement_2):ii10-33.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSarfo AK, Karuppannan S. Application of geospatial technologies in the COVID-19 fight of Ghana. Transactions of the Indian National Academy of Engineering. 2020;5(2):193\\u0026ndash;204.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNasi R, Taber AV, Van Vliet N. Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review. 2011;13(3):355\\u0026ndash;68.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDennis-Antwi JA, Ohene-Frempong K, Anie KA, Dzikunu H, Agyare VA, Boadu RO, Antwi JS, Asafo MK, Anim-Boamah O, Asubonteng AK, Agyei S. Relation between religious perspectives and views on sickle cell disease research and associated public health interventions in Ghana. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2018 Sep 1:1\\u0026ndash;7.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKoenig HG. Religion, spirituality, and health: The research and clinical implications. ISRN Psychiatry. 2012;2012:278730.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eK\\u0026uuml;mpel NF, Milner-Gulland EJ, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G. Impact of gun-hunting on diurnal primates in continental Equatorial Guinea. International journal of Primatology. 2008;29(4):1065\\u0026ndash;82.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWolfe ND, Daszak P, Kilpatrick AM, Burke DS. Bushmeat hunting, deforestation, and prediction of zoonotic disease emergence. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(12):1822\\u0026ndash;7.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOnyekuru NA, Ume CO, Ezea CP, Chukwuma Ume NN (2020) Effects of Ebola virus disease outbreak on bush meat enterprise and environmental health risk behavior among households in south-east Nigeria. The journal of primary prevention, 41: 603\\u0026ndash;618.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBrashares JS, Golden CD, Weinbaum KZ, Barrett CB, Okello GV. Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108(34):13931-6.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDestoumieux-Garz\\u0026oacute;n D, Mavingui P, Boetsch G, Boissier J, Darriet F, Duboz P, et al. The One Health Concept: 10 Years Old and a Long Road Ahead. Front Vet Sci. 2018;5:14.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":false,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":true,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"journal-of-ethnobiology-and-ethnomedicine\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"jeet\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine](http://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/)\",\"snPcode\":\"13002\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13002/3\",\"title\":\"Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine\",\"twitterHandle\":\"@ethnobiomed\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"em\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"BMC/SO AJ\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"bushmeat, zoonotic diseases, hunting, protected areas, Ghana\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7304225/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7304225/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eBackground:\\u003c/strong\\u003e Public health concerns in the procurement and consumption of bushmeat have largely been subdued by the socio-economic importance of the commodity. However, recent pandemics such as COVID-19 and the Ebola virus have put a spotlight on the need to avert health risks associated with the bushmeat industry in West Africa. This study used a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) approach to investigate hunting and bushmeat patronage and zoonotic diseases concern in Ghana. A total of 335 respondents were contacted in a household survey, and 53 hunters were interviewed as key informants.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eResults:\\u003c/strong\\u003e The results indicate that the outbreak of COVID-19 may have affected bushmeat consumption as more respondents consumed bushmeat before COVID-19 than after COVID-19 with a significant difference between consumers in northern Ghana and those in southern Ghana [\\u003cem\\u003eX\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e2\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;(1,\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;= 335) = 16.224,\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;= .003]. However, the popular perception was that human-to-human contact remains the major route of viral disease transmission and not from wild animals to humans. Hunting activities were drastically reduced during COVID-19 but surprisingly the hunters attributed the decline to diminishing game numbers in their hunting grounds instead of COVID-19.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eConclusion:\\u003c/strong\\u003e The results show that bushmeat hunting and consumption are not considered as effective routes of transferring zoonotic pathogens to humans. There is therefore a need for repackaging public education messages to reiterate the fact that zoonotic diseases can start at any place once there is an effective interaction between animals and humans. Consequently, conservation goals may be achieved if anti-poaching campaigns are designed to centre on public health benefits that can be injured by avoiding hunting and bushmeat consumption.\\u0026nbsp;\\u0026nbsp;\\u0026nbsp;\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Regional Dynamics of Zoonotic Risk Perception and Wildlife Use in Ghana\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-08-14 11:05:40\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7304225/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0},{\"type\":\"decision\",\"content\":\"Revision requested\",\"date\":\"2025-09-28T20:50:51+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-09-28T20:37:07+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"303872883681687971590503745006113813251\",\"date\":\"2025-09-19T17:25:52+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"39326907589219438682851081783054404033\",\"date\":\"2025-09-18T23:08:24+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-09-18T09:06:44+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"66294422080113859921323338542995609872\",\"date\":\"2025-09-17T12:30:40+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-09-16T11:54:48+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"118312068738596772870491562618181387703\",\"date\":\"2025-09-14T05:26:15+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"325052153952683970205734803849148767184\",\"date\":\"2025-09-09T06:21:04+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"31834490562398331928148137853817313313\",\"date\":\"2025-09-08T15:26:15+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"79323454673810307502319263035148411284\",\"date\":\"2025-08-18T08:35:04+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewersInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-08-08T01:09:02+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorAssigned\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-08-08T00:37:33+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"checksComplete\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-08-08T00:37:20+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"submitted\",\"content\":\"Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine\",\"date\":\"2025-08-05T22:29:15+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"journal-of-ethnobiology-and-ethnomedicine\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"jeet\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine](http://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/)\",\"snPcode\":\"13002\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13002/3\",\"title\":\"Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine\",\"twitterHandle\":\"@ethnobiomed\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"em\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"BMC/SO AJ\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"ed474d00-77a0-4b1a-907b-951aa3384cee\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"August 14th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"published-in-journal\",\"subjectAreas\":[],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2025-12-01T16:07:53+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":{\"articleIdentity\":\"rs-7304225\",\"link\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-025-00836-7\",\"journal\":{\"identity\":\"journal-of-ethnobiology-and-ethnomedicine\",\"isVorOnly\":false,\"title\":\"Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine\"},\"publishedOn\":\"2025-11-27 15:58:21\",\"publishedOnDateReadable\":\"November 27th, 2025\"},\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-08-14 11:05:40\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"10.1186/s13002-025-00836-7\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-025-00836-7\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-7304225\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-7304225\",\"identity\":\"rs-7304225\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}