Regional dynamics of zoonotic risk perception and wildlife use in Ghana
- Open Access
- 27.11.2025
- Research
Erschienen in:
Abstract
Introduction
Hunting wild animals for food has existed for many centuries [1] and has provided food and 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 the commodity [4]. 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]. The increasing demand for bushmeat in Africa leads to overhunting and poaching in most protected areas [9, 10]. Afriyie et al. [3] have identified high demand for protein, economic gain and subsistence needs as major causes of poaching in protected areas in Ghana.
The hunting, handling, and consumption of wild meat exposes humans to a spectrum of zoonotic pathogens, making bushmeat not only a conservation concern but also a significant public health risk [8, 11, 12]. For example, a fruit bat (Eidolon helvum) widely consumed across West Africa, has been identified as a reservoir for multiple zoonotic pathogens, including the deadly Ebola virus, thereby underscoring the potential public health risks associated with its hunting and consumption [13]. Indeed, the bushmeat trade was temporarily banned during the 2013–2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa to safeguard human health [8]. However, evidence suggests these bans were ineffective at preventing consumption [8, 14‐16].
Anzeige
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. Zoonotic risks refer to the potential for infectious diseases to be transmitted between animals and humans, particularly from wildlife or domesticated animals to humans. From March 2020 to late 2022, 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 [17, 18]. However, it is unclear how bushmeat consumers and hunters perceive the risks of zoonotic transmission and the perceived validity of these health messages. There is a paucity of research on the perceptions of bushmeat value chain actors regarding zoonotic disease transmission along the chain. To address this research gap, the study employed a predominantly qualitative approach, complemented by basic quantitative analysis, to examine how hunting and bushmeat consumption patterns in Ghana may have changed since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. A comparative approach is adopted to compare public perceptions of residents in northern Ghana and their counterparts in southern Ghana. Understanding the perceptions of bushmeat users and hunters is essential for informing interventions aimed at enhancing awareness and appreciation of the health risks associated with hunting and consuming bushmeat [19, 20]. 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.
The specific objectives of the study are to: (i) assess the perceptions of households on wildlife-related zoonoses as a threat to human health, (ii) assess the impact of COVID-19 on hunting and bushmeat consumption by households in Ghana, and (iii) assess the precautionary measures hunters may take to protect themselves from wildlife-related zoonoses.
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) (Fig. 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 [21] including those in the selected communities.
Fig. 1
Map of Ghana (A) showing MNP (B) and ARFR (C)
Anzeige
The study compared public perceptions in the northern and southern regions of Ghana, which differ significantly in ecological characteristics and sociocultural structures [22]. 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 [23]. Additionally, household-level economic conditions and cultural beliefs related to protein consumption vary between the regions [24]. 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 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 236.63 km². 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 °C and 29 °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 [25]. It is also home to a large diversity of plants, including 656 species of vascular plants [26]. Various official designations have been given to ARFR 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. One cannot legally hunt in the ARFR without the appropriate permits or outside any limited, specified exceptions (and hunting is fully prohibited during the closed season). The default legal position for forest reserves is strict control of hunting. 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 and herbs. The value of bushmeat extracted from the ARF annually is estimated at 5.2 million United States dollars [26]. Indeed, this level of exploitation puts pressure on the ARFR [21].
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. There are at least 94 mammal species, over 300 bird species, 9 amphibian species, and 33 reptile species in the MNP [27]. The park is surrounded by 33 communities and the most common livelihood activity for people in these communities is crop farming. Under no circumstance is hunting or the extraction of any other forest products allowed in the MNP because it is an IUCN category II protected area (a national park). The selected communities adjacent to MNP were designated as MNP Fringe I, MNP Fringe II, MNP Fringe III, MNP Fringe IV, and MNP Fringe V. while those near the ARFR were labeled ARFR Fringe I, ARFR Fringe II, ARFR Fringe III, ARFR Fringe IV, and ARFR Fringe V (Fig. 1). The actual names of the communities have been anonymized to protect their identities, as some of the activities investigated (e.g., poaching) are illegal.
Sampling strategy and data collection
The MNP and ARFR were selected as stage I (regional) clusters in line with the Expanded Programme of Immunisation (EPI) cluster sampling procedure to represent northern and southern regions of Ghana [28, 29]. For stage II cluster of the EPI procsdure, 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 arrested poachers and communal hunting activities. Poaching refers to the illegal hunting, capturing, or killing of wild animals in violation of national laws, regulations, or conservation policies. Communal hunting on the other hand is a traditional or collective hunting practice conducted by members of a community, usually for subsistence, cultural, or social purposes, and often guided by local norms, taboos, and customary rules. Both of these activities are not allowed in the ARFR and MNP without prior permit from wildlife authorities. Snowball technique was used to identify hunters for the key informant interviews.
The household survey
The EPI method was used because of difficulty in getting the sample frame (the number of total households) in communities within the study areas [28, 29]. 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 [28]. 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 [28].
A simple structured questionnaire was used for the household survey to collect data that would make it possible to compare issues between the two regions. The first section of the questionnaire covered demographic variables including age, gender, household size, level of education and occupation. The last section had questions on meat preference, bushmeat consumption before and after the outbreak of COVID-19, routes of zoonotic diseases transmission and religious beliefs about zoonotic diseases. The questionnaire was piloted in a community near the selected communities to refine the questions.
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 [30] was used to get informants. We specifically used the linear snowball sampling technique where we identified the first interviewee through a tip-off from village elders. The first informant then volunteered information about the next potential informant and the process repeated until saturation point was reached. Where a potential informant would not grant an interview, researchers would fall back on a previous informant to suggest a new potential informant. Only three informants failed to identify fellow hunters, claiming they did not know any. We got 31 informants (6–7 hunters) in the communities near the MNP and 22 informants (4–5 hunters) in the communities near the ARFR (Table). According to Kumar [31], 15–35 informants are enough to provide sufficient information on any subject matter being researched on.
The interviews were conducted face-to-face from December 2020 to January 2021. The interview guide comprised of 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 bushmeat, 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 because those variables were binary (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. Regional differences in the remaining variables were assessed using the Chi-square test, as these variables were binary in nature.
Anzeige
Qualitative data from respondents’ open-ended survey responses and interviews with hunters were analyzed thematically to capture patterns in perceptions, beliefs, and practices related to bushmeat consumption, hunting, and zoonotic disease awareness across northern and southern Ghana. The analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step thematic analysis approach. First, all interview transcripts and field notes were read repeatedly for familiarization, after which initial codes were generated inductively to reflect meaningful units of information. Coding was done manually and supplemented with cross-case comparison to ensure consistency and contextual sensitivity. Related codes were subsequently collated into broader themes that captured recurrent narratives—such as “religious rationalization of disease risk,” “cultural symbolism of bushmeat,” and “perceived impracticality of PPE use.” These themes were reviewed and refined through iterative reading to ensure they accurately represented participants’ perspectives while maintaining regional distinctions. Data interpretation emphasized both semantic and latent meanings, situating respondents’ accounts within Ghana’s broader socio-cultural and ecological context.
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. 94% 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.
Anzeige
Table 1
Comparison of socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge, and bushmeat consumption patterns between respondents from Northern and Southern Ghana
Variables | Northern Ghana | Southern Ghana | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | T | P | |
Age | 36.7 (14.2) | 44.7 (16.4) | 4.816 | <0.001* |
Household size | 9.6 (6.7) | 5.2 (3.2) | 7.379 | <0.001* |
% | % | X2 | P | |
Gender | 0.859 | 0.208 | ||
Female | 37 | 42 | ||
Male | 63 | 58 | ||
Education | 35.864 | ˂0.001* | ||
Literate | 66 | 94 | ||
Nonliterate | 34 | 6 | ||
Occupation | 2.052 | 0.093 | ||
Farmer | 51 | 43 | ||
Other | 49 | 57 | ||
Meat preference | 0.624 | 0.360 | ||
Bushmeat | 22 | 24 | ||
Other protein sources | 78 | 76 | ||
Knowledge of the origin of zoonotic diseases (e.g., Ebola, COVID-19) | ||||
Yes | 70 | 69 | ||
No | 30 | 31 | ||
Consumption of bushmeat before COVID-19 pandemics | 0.117 | 0.413 | ||
Yes | 81 | 62 | ||
No | 19 | 38 | ||
Divine protection against diseases | 19.185 | < 0.001 | ||
Yes | 58 | 80 | ||
No | 42 | 20 |
Perceptions 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. As revealed in the household survey, 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. The lockdown on human activities after the outbreak of COVID-19 was mentioned as a major reason for the decline.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, bushmeat consumption was higher in northern Ghana (81%) than in the south (62%), and this difference was statistically significant (χ² = 16.224, p =.003). However, consumption declined considerably in both regions after the pandemic, dropping to 61% in the north and 33% in the south (χ² = 27.226, p <.001). This suggests that the pandemic had a discernible impact on bushmeat consumption patterns, likely due to heightened public awareness of zoonotic disease risks and mobility restrictions during that period. Although overall preference for bushmeat as a protein source remained high in both regions (78% in the north and 76% in the south), the reduced frequency of actual consumption after COVID-19 indicates a behavioral shift rather than a change in dietary preference. Table 2 has reasons for the preference of bushmeat over meat from domestic animals.
Table 2
Taste, nutritional, and cultural dimensions of bushmeat preference among respondents in Northern and Southern Ghana
Northern Ghana | Southern Ghana |
|---|---|
Taste and flavor preferences | |
• Bushmeat is often more flavorful and aromatic than livestock meat and complements well with our leafy-vegetable soups, e.g. Ayoyo and dry okro. | • Certain delicacies (e.g. light soup, palm nut soup) are considered incomplete without bushmeat because it gives a distinctive smoky or earthy flavour. |
• Species like grasscutter, hare, and antelope are prized for their strong, gamey taste that pairs well with traditional soups (e.g., Tuo Zaafi with ayoyo). | • In the forest communities in Ghana, we value the unique taste of bushmeat, particularly duiker, bushbuck, and giant rat. |
Perceived nutritional value | |
• Bushmeat is “stronger” and more nutritious and thus gives energy for farm work. | • Bushmeat is “healthier” and more “organic” than poultry or imported frozen meat (“chicken back,” turkey tails). |
• Dried or smoked bushmeat is also a preserved protein source during the long dry season when livestock meat may be scarce. | • Some households believe it has medicinal or restorative qualities (e.g., strengthening the body after childbirth). |
Availability and seasonal access | |
• Cattle, goats, and sheep are often wealth-storage animals, not consumed daily. People prefer bushmeat because it provides an accessible protein source without depleting household herds. | • In forest zones, hunting is embedded in food systems, making bushmeat more readily integrated into meals. |
• Bushmeat is more seasonally abundant (especially in hunting seasons and during bush fires). | • Despite higher availability of farmed poultry and pork, bushmeat is consumed for dietary diversity. |
Cultural reason for bushmeat preference | |
• Bushmeat is embedded in the cultural identity of many northern ethnic groups (Dagomba, Mamprusi, Gonja, etc.). Hunting has long been a communal activity that reinforces identity, masculinity, and respect. | • Bushmeat, especially antelope, bushbuck, and grasscutter, is regarded as a prestige food. Serving it at ceremonies (chieftaincy installations, Odwira, Akwasidae, Homowo, funerals) reflects wealth, power, and social standing. |
• Certain rites (e.g., funerals, initiation ceremonies and marriage ceremonies among the Birifors) often include bushmeat as a prestige food. | • In Akan traditions, bushmeat is used in libations and sacrifices to ancestors and deities, symbolizing a connection to the spiritual world. |
Anzeige
Regional differences emerged regarding perceived routes of disease transmission from wildlife. Respondents in northern Ghana commonly cited the consumption of inadequately cooked bushmeat as the primary transmission route, whereas those in southern Ghana more often identified the capture and handling of live animals as the major risk (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2
Perceived key pathways of zoonotic diseases transmission linked to bushmeat handling and consumption in northern and southern Ghana
Hunting and zoonotic disease prevention among hunters
On average, hunters had six years of experience, and all were male—consistent with the gendered nature of hunting in Ghana (Table 3). 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 long-boots, hand gloves, or protective clothing. Explanations ranged from beliefs that PPEs are impractical in forest settings, unaffordable, or irrelevant to hunting activities (Table 3). Cultural and spiritual beliefs were also cited, with some hunters claiming spiritual protection or traditional medicine as sufficient safeguards against disease.
Table 3
Perceptions and local knowledge regarding PPE use and zoonotic disease prevention among bushmeat hunters in Northern and Southern Ghana
Northern Ghana | Southern Ghana |
|---|---|
Perceptions about PPE usage | |
• 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. | • We have some knowledge of how to identify and avoid sick animals in the forest. |
• When you dress like a doctor or engineer [wearing PPEs] to go hunting, you may not kill any animal because the animals will notice you early and run away. | • 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. |
Belief in spiritual fortification | |
• We protect ourselves spiritually and it covers everything | • 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 have some local medicine to apply when we get hurt by animals. | • During the ‘closed season’* for hunting some people still go hunting. Such hunters can be spiritually punished with some sicknesses for killing pregnant and juvenile animals |
Traditional knowledge and practices used to avoid diseases from bushmeat | |
• 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 shoot or trap a sick animal, you must leave it in the bush so that you do not transmit its disease to humans. |
• We have herbal concoctions and powders that we add to the meat to cook if we suspect the carcass to have pathogens | • In our meal preparation, the soup with meat is well spiced and cooked for a long time to kill any disease-causing pathogen. |
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.
Fig. 3
Hunting before and after the outbreak of COVID-19
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 [32]. 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. [33], who observed that households with ten or more members in Brazzaville, Republic of 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 [34]. 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.
The younger mean age in the north, larger household sizes in the north, and markedly lower formal education rates in the north — mirror nationally documented demographic and educational patterns and likely shape both reliance on bushmeat and receptivity to public health messaging. Larger households and younger age structures in northern Ghana are consistent with census-derived patterns of higher household sizes in the northern regions, which can increase household-level protein demands and the role of readily available wild meat in food security strategies.
Lower formal educational attainment in the northern sample (66% literate vs. 94% in the south) amplifies concerns about effective risk communication. Educational disadvantage is associated with reduced access to, and comprehension of, public health messaging; this can blunt the impact of media campaigns that rely on literacy or formal schooling to convey zoonotic risk and safe handling guidance. Tailored, context-appropriate communication (e.g., radio drama, community meetings, pictorial materials, and engagement through local leaders) is therefore essential to bridge this gap.
Bushmeat consumption after COVID-19 pandemic
With the widespread awareness (approximately 70%) of zoonotic disease risks, the study found that bushmeat consumption declined, particularly in southern Ghana. The regional 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 high 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 [35, 36]. 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 [9, 34].
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, 37].
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 than northern respondents 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 [38] 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 [39]. 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 activities
The gendered nature of hunting, exclusively undertaken by men, was consistent with broader West African patterns [40]. 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 [Kumpel et al. [40], 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 [41]. 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. [42] 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. [43], 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 [44].
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 was 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.
Acknowledgements
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.
Declarations
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.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.