# Assessing the relationship between socioeconomic factors of bushmeat consumers and pattern of consumption in Owo, Ondo State, Nigeria

A A Alarape, Opemipo Alaba Ijose, Ibukunoluwa A Ayodele

► To cite this version:

A A Alarape, Opemipo Alaba Ijose, Ibukunoluwa A Ayodele. Assessing the relationship between socioeconomic factors of bushmeat consumers and pattern of consumption in Owo, Ondo State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Wildlife Management, 2017, 1 (1), pp.128-136. hal-04183570

HAL Id: hal-04183570

https://hal.science/hal-04183570v1

Submitted on 23 Aug 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Assessing the relationship between socioeconomic factors of bushmeat consumers and pattern of consumption in Owo, Ondo State, Nigeria

Alarape, A.A., Ijose, O.A., and Ayodele, I.A.

Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.

*Corresponding author: ijoseope@yahoo.com, Phone: +2348103949338

## Abstract

This study examined bushmeat consumption pattern in Owo, Ondo State. Forty-three (43) bushmeat consumers were selected from four restaurants in Owo. Data were collected through a semi-structured questionnaire while analysis was through descriptive statistics and chi-square. Results revealed that 88.4% of the respondents were male, 62.8% were married while majority (69.9%) were within 20-50 years of age. In addition, larger percentage (41.9%) had tertiary education. Also, 27.9% of them were civil servants, 69.8% had an average household size of 2-5 individuals. The study further showed that 34.9% and 32.6% of the respondents consumed bushmeat on weekly and daily basis respectively. Grasscutter (58.1%) was the preferred bushmeat while 46.5% consumed it because of its unique taste. There was significant relationship between educational status (p<0.0) of consumers and their patterns of consumption. There is urgent need for wild species domestication in the study area to meet the increasing market demand for bushmeat.

**Keywords:** Socio-economic, bushmeat consumers, consumption pattern, wildlife

## Introduction

The exploitation of wild animals for household consumption or trade is affirmed to be one of the biggest threats to the wildlife of tropical rainforests (Fa, Peres & Meeuwig, 2002, Milner-Gulland & Bennett, 2003) and it is on the increase in Africa (Nielsen, 2006, Fa & Brown, 2009, Effiom, Nunez-Iturri, Smith, Ottosson, & Olsson, 2013, Taylor, Scharlemann, Rowcliffe, Kumpel, Harfoot & Fa, 2015). Rainforests are often degraded by bushmeat hunting, as exploitation rates often supersede reproduction rates where quest for bushmeat is high (Robinson & Bennett, 2004, Rist, Milner-Gulland, Cowlishaw, & Rowcliffe, 2009). Large mammals that reproduces slowly are usually prone to local extinction (Brashares, Arcese & Sam, 2001, Poulsen, Clark & Bolker, 2011). Average-sized terrestrial mammals are hunted using non-specific techniques, which can result to drift in the faunal species composition (Jerozolimski & Peres, 2003). Non-preferred mammals are also influenced through bycatch and competitive or predator release (Redford, 1992, Peres & Dolman, 2000, Linder & Oates, 2011), with consequences for functional plant-animal relations (Wright, 2003) and ecosystem stability (Redford, 1992, Galetti & Dirzo, 2013).

Bushmeat is defined as wildlife species harvested for consumption or for economic purposes (Cowlishaw & Rowcliffe, 2005). As a valuable source of nutrients and commercial good, bushmeat plays a direct role in the livelihoods of nearly 150 million people across the world. Each year, about two million tons of bushmeat is irrationally exploited in Central Africa alone (Brown & Williams, 2003). This tremendous dependence of rural people upon bushmeat has made hunting practices unfriendly to the ecosystem throughout these regions. Hunting is only sustainable when the rate of species harvested does not negatively impact the productivity of the species, thus enabling a stable population of the species (Bowen-Jones, Brown & Robinson, 2002,

Millner-Gulland, 2001). Excessive hunting poses the most severe direct threat to the sustainability of wildlife populations in tropical areas (Fa et al., 2002, Wilkie, Starkey, Abernethy, Effa, Tefler, & Godoy, 2005). In Africa, 68% of bushmeat species are hunted irrationally (Knee, 2000). The pressure exerted upon unsustainably harvested species has driven many of these wild species close to extinction.

Bushmeat trade is lucrative to poor-rural households because it makes provision for high returns to labour with low risk and minimal capital outlay. However, the situation is different in the urban areas where bushmeat command very high prices in the city restaurants and is only an exclusive reserve for the highly privileged individuals who regard eating the meat as a way of linking up with their rural ancestors and an attribute of high degree of affluence. In Liberia, Anstey (1991) estimated the bushmeat trade to be worth more than the timber trade. Other estimates of the bushmeat trade have been made for countries like Liberia it was estimated to be US $24 million in 1988 (Anstey, 1991). Ivory Coast: US$117m (Bowen-Jones, 1998), Nigeria and Ghana: similar to Liberia (Fa & Purvis, 1997).

Ayodele, Ebin, and Alarape (1999) affirmed that the supply of bushmeat from wild sources no doubt serves as the only possible measure to bridge the gap between livestock production and human population growth. Asibey and Child (1990) postulated that communities' adjacent rainforests in Nigeria secured 84 percent of their animal protein needs from wild species. Ajayi (1979) had earlier reported that forest mammals accounted for between 20% and 90% of the total animal protein consumed in Benin Republic, Cameroon, Ghana, Cote d' Voire, Liberia and Nigeria. Onadeko, Adegbola, and Oladayinbo (1989) established the fact that vast majority of people are more interested in consuming bushmeat than its conservation, with pressure on bushmeat while the situation is aided by poverty due to the poor economic status of most
developing countries. As a result of social inequality in
wealth and poor income distribution in the society,
many people who cannot hunt either because they are
urban based, elite, wealthy or lack the technical know-
how are willing to pay in order to have a taste of
bushmeat. This in turn necessitates the insurgence of
buying and selling of bushmeat, otherwise referred to
as bushmeat trade.

Today, the value of animal protein from wild animals
and fresh water fish consumed annually is well over
N200 million (Afolayan, 1986, Olaoye, 2010), yet FAO
(2006) categorized Nigeria as a protein- deficient
country. While native inhabitants kill, eat or sell wild
animals, the rich and affluent customers patronise the
grasscutters, snails and antelopes where they are hosted
along roadsides or in expensive hotels and restaurants
in Nigeria as a demonstration of preference for
bushmeat.

Despite the foregoing, consumption trends have
become disturbing especially when sustainable
utilization is being considered. Collecting reliable data
on bushmeat consumption is difficult because many
species are protected under national laws, meaning that
informants may refuse to discuss their involvement to
avoid facing the wrath of the law (Keane,
Andriamatsiaro, Jones, & Milner-Gulland, 2011, St
John, Gibbons, & Edwards-Jones, 2010).
Understanding the patterns of such bushmeat
consumption is therefore germane for designing
effective management plans to conserve wildlife
species (Milner-Gulland & Bennett, 2003, Fa,
Albrechtsen, Johnson, & Macdonald, 2009). There
have been a number of attempts to investigate
predictors of bushmeat consumption. For example,
high income status is an important predictor of
consumption of animal protein in general but will be a
topmost predictor of bushmeat consumption where
wild meat is preferred over domestic meat (East,
Kumpel, Milner-Gulland, & Rowcliffe, 2005, Wilkie et
al., 2005, Godoy, Undurraga, Wilkie, Reyes-Garcia,
Huanca et al., 2010). Employment alternatives for
hunters (Lindsey, Romanach, Matema, Matema,
Mupamhadzi et al., 2010), access to guns or snares
required for hunting (Coad, Abernethy, Balmford,
Manica, Airey et al., 2010) and variables such as
livelihood activities and location (Wilcox & Nambu,
2007) may also predict availability of bushmeat and
therefore, to some extent, its consumption.

Despite the obvious potential for interactions between
these various influences which are evident in bushmeat
researches undertaken in Nigeria in recent decades,
there are few studies which consider the importance of
socio-economic factors as predictors of bushmeat
consumption patterns in Ondo State, Nigeria. In view
of the challenges posed on biodiversity by huge supply
of bushmeat for consumption in Owo Local
Government Area, this study intends to specifically
describe the socio-economic characteristics of

bushmeat consumers, identify the types of bushmeat
most consumed by respondents, identify the reasons for
consuming bushmeat, and describe the bushmeat
consumption pattern in the study area. The study
hypothesized that there is no significant relationship
between socio-economic characteristics of the
respondents and their consumption pattern of
bushmeat.

**Materials and Methods**

***The Study Area***

The study was carried out Owo, Owo Local
Government Areas (LGAs) of Ondo State. Ondo State
was created on 3 February, 1976 from the former
Western State. It originally included Ekiti State, which
was carved out in 1996. Owo Local Government Area
is one of the 18 Local Government Areas in Ondo State.
The name “Owo” was derived from the first ruler of the
town called Ojugbelu. His pleasant manner and simple
way of life earned him the name “Owo” meaning
respect, and the name was passed on to his followers
and descendants. Owo traced its origin to the scenic and
ancient city of Ile-Ife, the cradle of Yoruba culture.
Demography of the LGA could be described as both
urban and as well as rural because of the population size
from place to place (Ondo State Government, 2012).
Owo as at 2006 has a total population of 222,262, with
males accounting for 112,056 and females accounting
for 110,206 (Federal Government of Nigeria, 2009).
The projected population of Owo in year 2015 was
estimated to be 279,672. The present-day Owo is an
agricultural centre that is involved in bushmeat trade,
growing and trading of yams, cassava, maize, peppers,
okra, cocoa and cotton. Other commercial activities in
the town include lumbering, soya beans processing etc
(Ondo State Government, 2012).

***Data Collection and Analysis***

Data were collected from individuals that patronised
restaurants where bushmeat is served as part of meals.
Multi-staged sampling technique was adopted for
selection of respondents. Owo Township was
purposively selected because it is the most urban part of
Owo Local Government Area with the presence of the
Oba's palace, the Oba's market, presence of financial
institutions, schools and high-profile restaurants. Four
restaurants were purposively selected because they are
notable for selling food mainly served with bushmeat
on a constant basis. A total of 43 respondents (i.e.
people who came to eat at the restaurants) were
conveniently selected from the four restaurants for this
study on the basis of their interest and willingness to
participate in the study. The instrument of data
collection was questionnaire consisting information of
demographic data of the respondents, the species of
wild animals involved, the frequency and consumption
pattern of bushmeat as well as the perceived
consequences of unsustainable bushmeat exploitation
and utilisation. Data were analysed using frequency
counts, percentages and chi-square.
## RESULTS

### Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

In Table 1, male respondents (88.4%) consumed bushmeat more than their female counterparts. In addition, the respondents' age was evenly distributed and ranged between 20 to more than 50years. Majority (62.8%) of the respondents were married and 86.0% of

them were Christians, 44.2% had secondary education while 41.9% of the bushmeat consumers had tertiary education. Occupational distribution of bushmeat consumers indicates that 27.9% were civil servants. The distribution of the bushmeat consumers shows that 69.8% had a relatively moderate household size of 2-5 persons while 51.2% earned above 50,001 in a month.

<table><caption>Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of bushmeat consumers (n=43)</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>38</td><td>88.4</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>5</td><td>11.6</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;20</td><td>1</td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td>20-30</td><td>12</td><td>27.9</td></tr><tr><td>31-40</td><td>10</td><td>23.3</td></tr><tr><td>41-50</td><td>10</td><td>23.3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;50</td><td>10</td><td>23.3</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Marital Status</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Single</td><td>15</td><td>34.9</td></tr><tr><td>Married</td><td>27</td><td>62.8</td></tr><tr><td>Divorce</td><td>1</td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Religion Status</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Christian</td><td>37</td><td>86.0</td></tr><tr><td>Muslim</td><td>6</td><td>14.0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Educational Status</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Primary</td><td>4</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary</td><td>19</td><td>44.2</td></tr><tr><td>Tertiary</td><td>18</td><td>41.9</td></tr><tr><td>Non Formal</td><td>2</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Occupation</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Farmer</td><td>1</td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td>Civil Servant</td><td>12</td><td>27.9</td></tr><tr><td>Professional in Private services</td><td>4</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td>Artisan</td><td>10</td><td>23.3</td></tr><tr><td>Trading</td><td>8</td><td>18.6</td></tr><tr><td>Driving</td><td>4</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>4</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Household Size</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2-5</td><td>30</td><td>69.8</td></tr><tr><td>6-9</td><td>11</td><td>25.6</td></tr><tr><td>10-16</td><td>2</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Monthly Income (Naira)</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5,000-10,000</td><td>4</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td>10,001-20,000</td><td>5</td><td>11.6</td></tr><tr><td>20,001-30,000</td><td>9</td><td>20.9</td></tr><tr><td>40,001-50,000</td><td>3</td><td>7.0</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;50,001</td><td>22</td><td>51.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Frequency of Bushmeat Consumption and Preference

Table 2 shows that 34.9% of the respondents consumed bushmeat on a weekly basis, 32.6% on a daily basis,

25.6% occasionally while 7.0% consumed bushmeat on a monthly basis. Figure 1 also shows that 58.0% of bushmeat consumers indicated grasscutter as the most preferred bushmeat, 37.2% preferred duiker and 4.7% preferred porcupine.
<table><caption>**Table 2: Bushmeat consumption frequency (n=43)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>How often do you consume?</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Occasionally</td><td>11</td><td>25.6</td></tr><tr><td>Monthly</td><td>3</td><td>7.0</td></tr><tr><td>Weekly</td><td>15</td><td>34.9</td></tr><tr><td>Daily</td><td>14</td><td>32.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1: Respondents' preferred bushmeat consumed in the study area (n=43)**</figcaption></figure>

## Reasons for Consuming Bushmeat

Figure 2 shows that 46.5% preferred consuming bushmeat because of the delicious taste, 25.6% consumed bushmeat because of the nutritional benefits, 18.6% prefer consuming bushmeat because it has low fat content which helps the body system free

from all fat related diseases while 7.0% indicated availability as an important reason for consuming bushmeat. The study further shows that affordability, pleasure, medicinal, aesthetic and cultural attachment as the reasons for consuming bushmeat by 2.3% of the respondents respectively.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2: Respondents' rationale for consuming bushmeat (n=43)**</figcaption></figure>
Alarape, Ijose and Ayodele

Respondents' Intention towards Putting an End to the Consumption of Bushmeat

Figure 3 shows that majority of the respondents (74.4%) stated that they would never stop consuming

bushmeat, while the remaining (25.6%) respondents concluded they might stop eating if there is logical reason to halt the consumption of bushmeat.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Respondents' responses when asked if they would ever stop consuming bushmeat (n=43).</figcaption></figure>

Perceived Effect of Bushmeat Exploitation on the Ecosystem

The majority of the respondents (60.5%) perceived that

bushmeat exploitation would definitely affect biodiversity adversely (Figure 4).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Consumers' responses to the effect of bushmeat exploitation on the ecosystem (n=43)</figcaption></figure>

Household Bushmeat Consumption Pattern

Table 3 shows that 72.1% respondents strongly agreed that every member of their household consumed

bushmeat, 14.0% agreed, 7.0% disagreed, 4.7% were undecided while the remaining (2.3%) strongly disagreed that every member of their household consumed bushmeat.

<table><caption>Table 3: Respondents' Responses when asked if other members of their household consumed bushmeat (%).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Strongly Agree</th><th>Agree</th><th>Undecided</th><th>Disagree</th><th>Strongly Disagree</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Household members' consumption of bushmeat</td><td>72.1</td><td>14.0</td><td>4.7</td><td>7.0</td><td>2.3</td></tr></tbody></table>
Relationship between Bushmeat Consumption Pattern and Respondents' Socioeconomic Characteristics

Table 4 shows that educational status ($\chi^2$ = 36.560, p<0.0) was significant and positively related to the

respondents' bushmeat consumption pattern while gender ($\chi^2$ = 3.720, p>0.05), marital status ($\chi^2$ = 2.681, P>0.05), types of employment ($\chi^2$ = 25.023, p>0.05) and religion ($\chi^2$ = 1.161, p<0.05) had no significant relationship with the consumers' bushmeat consumption pattern.

<table><caption>Table 4: Chi-square test of the relationship between bushmeat consumption pattern and respondents' socioeconomic characteristics</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup>value</th><th>df</th><th>p-value</th><th>Decision</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender</td><td>3.720</td><td>3</td><td>.293</td><td>Not Significant</td></tr><tr><td>Marital status</td><td>2.681</td><td>6</td><td>.848</td><td>Not significant</td></tr><tr><td>Educational status</td><td>36.560</td><td>9</td><td>.000</td><td>Significant</td></tr><tr><td>Types of Employment</td><td>25.023</td><td>21</td><td>.216</td><td>Not significant</td></tr><tr><td>Religion</td><td>1.161</td><td>3</td><td>.762</td><td>Not significant</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="5">Chi Square is Significant at P-value of 0.05</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Discussion

It was evident in this study that male respondents consumed bushmeat more than their female counterparts. This claim was in line with a study carried out in Vietnam where Drury (2011) affirmed that bushmeat is primarily consumed by successful, high-income earners (men) who wish to communicate their high status in society, and this demand is only projected to increase in line with economic growth. Majority of the respondents were observed to be between 20years of age and more than 50 years. This is an indication that they were in their active age. Furthermore, the study shows that majority of the respondents were married and practised Christianity, this could be as a result of the fact that Owo metropolis is a Christian dominated area, the dominating religion speaks little or less about the prohibition of wild meat consumption. In respect to literacy level, there is high level of education recorded in this study due to the metropolitan nature of the study area particularly sharing a common boundary with Akure South LGA which is the seat of Government of Ondo State. High educational level as observed in this study also implies that respondents were well informed about the nutritional benefits of bushmeat not found in conventional meats. From the occupational distribution of bushmeat consumers, majority of the bushmeat consumers were civil servants, a civil service dominated population is an indication that the respondents are more likely to have stable and relatively reliable source of income which may encourage high patronage of restaurants where bushmeat are sold. This result conforms with the findings of Lindsey et al. (2011) and also that of Lindsey and Bento (2012), where they disclosed that, where bushmeat is purchased, buyers tend to be those with cash incomes, such as business people or teachers, or even local government officials and policemen. The distribution of the bushmeat consumers according to family size shows that most of the respondent interviewed had a relatively moderate household size, the relatively moderate household size may reduce the cost spent on consuming bushmeat compared to larger

household sizes. Finding shows that more than half of the respondents earned above 250,000 in a month. High monthly income as indicated by the respondents could be accounted for by the generally high literacy level among them which provides the opportunity for a good paying job and correspondingly high purchasing power. Hence, the respondents are at advantage to consume highly expensive bushmeat without necessarily compromising their family basic needs. This result is in line with the study of Barnett (2002) who stated that, where bushmeat is purchased in urban areas, buyers are likely to be relatively wealthier than those in rural areas due to the higher prices of bushmeat.

The distribution of the respondents based on their mostly consumed bushmeat implies that grasscutter had the highest percentage of consumption and it is likely to be under intensive hunting pressure, this is because hunters are likely to hunt grasscutter more aggressively in order to meet the ever increasing market demand for bushmeat and time of maturity contribute to the fact that they grow and mature rapidly within a short period of time thereby making them fit for consumption compared to antelopes and other types of games. The various reasons given above contributed to the considerable rate of price at which grasscutter is been sold in the market and restaurants, in other words, grasscutter are considered cheaper and affordable by most consumers regardless of their income status because they are readily available at any time. This fact conforms with that of Bowen-Jones et al. (2002) that established that consumer's preferences for bushmeat tend to shift with the availability and price of certain species over another as long as alternate bushmeat species are available.

Most Respondents preferred bushmeat due to its delicious taste and this is corroborated by the findings of Michelle, Effa, Starkey, Wilkie, Abernathy et al. (2006) who opined that bushmeat trade is driven by cultural proclivity and that Africans favour wild meat over domestic meat because of its taste and other several reasons and on one hand, bushmeat is traditional
African cuisine, and familiarity effectuates preference. Also, respondents indicated that bushmeat is rich in various nutrients that helps the body growth, this claim is also supported by the findings of findings of Dresden (2004) who reported that Africans also find in bushmeat certain properties that are not found in domesticated animals. More respondents indicated that they consume bushmeat on a weekly and daily basis and also more respondents who consume relatively fewer pieces of bushmeat but on constant basis strongly agreed to the fact that majority of their household consume bushmeat. These acts are seriously posing severe threat to the already threatened species of wildlife available by providing suitable justification for hunters to intensify their level of hunting more species frequently so as to be able to meet the increasing demand of bushmeat consumers in the study area on a constant basis. These statements were supported with this fact that stated that constant demands for bushmeat as a commodity has resulted in hunting efforts that go far beyond household needs alone (Bowen-Jones et al., 2002).

The perceptions of the respondents clearly indicated that they were not willing to stop the consumption of bushmeat, despite the obvious disappearance of bushmeat in the wild. This goes a long way to inform conservation stakeholders that the respondents were less concerned conservation. Among the selected socio-economic variables, only education is significantly related to respondents' bushmeat consumption pattern. The implication of this is that bushmeat is more consumed by respondents with high literacy level which could be to their knowledge on the value and importance of bushmeat to human's health against that of conventional meats and serves as contributory factor to why respondents consumed bushmeat.

## Conclusion

The study indicated that bushmeat consumers in Owo were highly literate and had jobs that provided a steady source of income to patronise bushmeat frequently. Grasscutter was the most preferred bushmeat and it was consumed as a result of its taste. Significant relationship between education of the respondents and their bushmeat consumption pattern was observed, which suggests that education is an important factor when consumption of bushmeat is being considered. There is urgent need for wild species domestication through captive breeding in the study area to meet the increasing market demand for bushmeat and to halt the unsustainable exploitation of wild animals for bushmeat.

## References

* Afolayan, T.A. (1986). Introduction to Tropical Agriculture. eds. Anthony Youdewe, Ezedinma, F.O.C. and Onazi Ochapa. Longman Pp. 173–182.

* Ajayi, S. S. (1979). Utilization of forest wildlife in West Africa. FO/Misc. 79/26. Dec. 1979. FAO Rome.

* Anstey, S. (1991). Wildlife Utilization in Liberia. WWF/FDA Wildlife Survey Report.

* Asibey, E. O. A. and Child, G. S. (1990). Wildlife management for rural development in Sub-Saharan Africa, *Unasylva*, 41(161): 3–10.

* Ayodele, I. A., Ebin, C. O. and A. A. Alarape (1999). *Essentials of wildlife management*. Jachin Publishers Ibadan, 122pp.

* Barnett, R. (2002). Wild meat utilisation in the east and Southern Africa region, in: Mainka, S., Trivedi, M. (Eds.), Links between biodiversity conservation, livelihoods and food security: the sustainable use of wild species for meat. IUCN, Gland

* Bowen-Jones, E. (1998). A review of the Commercial Bushmeat trade with emphasis on Central West Africa and the Great Apes. The Apes Alliance.

* Bowen-Jones, E., Brown, D., & Robinson, E. J. (2002) Assessment of the solution orientated research needed to promote a more sustainable bushmeat trade in Central and West Africa. Report to the Wildlife and Countryside Directorate, DEFRA.

* Brashares, J.S., Arcese, P. & Sam, M.K. (2001) Human demography and reserve size predict wildlife extinction in West Africa. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B*, 268: 2473–2478.

* Brown, D., & Williams, A., (2003) The case for bushmeat as a component of development policy: issues and challenges. *International Forestry Review*, 5(2): 148–155.

* Coad, L., Abernethy, K., Balmford, A., Manica, A., Airey, L., & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2010) Distribution and use of income from bushmeat in a rural village, central Gabon. *Conservation Biology*, 24: 1510–1518.

* Cowlishaw, G., & Rowcliffe M. (2005) The Bushmeat Research Programme. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from Zoological Society of London, Institute of Zoology Website: http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/ioz/projects/bushmeat.htm

* Dresden, E. (2004). “The Bushmeat Trade: Personal Reflections within a Context of Human–Animal Interactions.” *ReVision*, 27(2): 33–41.

* Drury, R. (2011). Hungry for success: Urban consumer demand for wild animal products in Vietnam. *Conservation and Society*, 9(3):247–57.

* East, T., Kumpel, N.F., Milner-Gulland, E.J., & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2005) Determinants of urban bushmeat consumption in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea. *Biological Conservation*, 126: 206–215.

* Effiom, E.O., Nunez-Iturri, G., Smith, H.G., Ottosson, U. & Olsson, O. (2013) Bushmeat hunting changes regeneration of African rainforests.
*Proceedings of the Royal Society B*, 280:
20130246.

Fa, J.E., Albrechtsen, L., Johnson, P.J., & Macdonald, D.W. (2009) Linkages between household wealth, bushmeat and other animal protein consumption are not invariant: evidence from Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea. *Animal Conservation*, 12: 599-610.

Fa, J. E., Peres, C. A., & Meeuwig, J. (2002) Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. *Conservation Biology*, 16: 232-241.

Fa, J.E. & Brown, D. (2009) Impacts of hunting on mammals in African tropical moist forests: a review and synthesis. *Mammal Review*, 39: 231-264.

Fa, J.E. & Purvis, A. (1997), Body size, diet and population density in Afrotropical Forest Mammals: A comparison with Neotropical species. *Journal of Animal Ecology*, 66: 98-112.

Fa, J.E., Perea, C.A. & Meeuwig, J. (2002) Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. *Conservation Biology*, 16: 232-237.

FAO (2006). Year book of Fishery Statistics Summary Tables. www.fao.org/fi/statist.asp Happold, D.C.D. (1998): The mammals of Nigeria. Oxford Science Publication, U.K. 1356p.

Federal Government of Nigeria (2009). Legal notice on publication of 2006 census final results. Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette, 96(2): 5-37.

Galetti, M. & Dirzo, R. (2013) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of living in a defaunated world. *Biological Conservation*, 163: 1-6.

Godoy, R., Undurraga, E.A., Wilkie, D., Reyes-Garcia, V., Huanca, T., Leonard, W.R., McDade, T., Tanner, S., & Vadez, V. (2010) The effect of wealth and real income on wildlife consumption among native Amazonians in Bolivia: estimates of annual trends with longitudinal household data (2002-2006). *Animal Conservation*, 13: 265-274.

Jerozolimski, A. & Peres, C.A. (2003) Bringing home the biggest bacon: a cross-site analysis of the structure of hunter-kill profiles in Neotropical forests. *Biological Conservation*, 111: 415-425.

Keane, A.M., Andriamatsiaro, R.A., Jones, J.P.G., & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2011) Evidence for the effects of education and environmental engagement on knowledge of wildlife laws in Madagascar. *Conservation Letters*, 4: 55-63.

Knee, A. (2000) International Spotlight on Growing Trade in Bushmeat. Retrieved March 17, 2005, from IUCN, Species Survival Commission Web site:

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/news/
bushmeat.html

Linder, J.M. & Oates, J.F. (2011) Differential impact of bushmeat hunting on monkey species and implications for primate conservation in Korup National Park, Cameroon. *Biological Conservation*, 144: 738-745.

Lindsey, P.A., Romanach, S.S., Matema, S., Matema, C., Mupamhadzi, I., & Muyengwi, I. (2010) Dynamics and underlying causes of illegal bushmeat trade in Zimbabwe. *Oryx*, 45 (1): 84-95.

Lindsey, P.A., Romañach, S.S., Tambling, C.J., Chartier, K., & Groom, R. (2011). Ecological and financial impacts of illegal bushmeat trade in Zimbabwe. *Oryx*, 45(1): 96-111

Lindsey, P., & Bento, C., (2012). Illegal Hunting and the Bushmeat Trade in Central Mozambique. A Case-study from Coutada 9, Manica Province. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Michelle, S., Effa, E.N., Starkey, M., Wilkie, N., Abernathy, K., Telfer, P., Godoy, R., & Treves, A. (2006). "Why People Eat Bushmeat: Results from Two-Choice, Taste Tests in Gabon, Central Africa." *Human Ecology*, 34(3):433-445.

Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2001) Assessing sustainability of hunting: insights from bioeconomic modeling. In M.I. Bakarr, G.A.B.d. Fonseca, R.A. Mittermeier, A.B. Rylands and K.W. Painemilla (Eds), Hunting and bushmeat Utilization in the African Rain Forest. Perspectives Toward a Blueprint for Conservation Action (pp. 113-151). Washington, DC: Conservation International.

Milner-Gulland, E.J. & Bennett, E.L. (2003) Wild meat: the bigger picture. *Trends in Ecology and Evolution*, 18: 351-357.

Nielsen, M.R. (2006) Importance, cause and effect of bushmeat hunting in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania: implications for community based wildlife management. *Biological Conservation*, 128: 509-516.

Olaoye, O.J. (2010). Dynamics of the Adoption Process of Improved Fisheries Technologies in Lagos and Ogun States Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis, University of Agriculture Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. 337p.

Onadeko, S.A., Adegbola, P.O., & Oladoyinbo, E.O. (1989). Consumptive Utilization of Wildlife in Oyo State, in Proceedings of Biennial Conference of Ecological Society of Nigeria, FRIN. Ibadan, Oyo State.

Ondo State Government (2012). About Ondo State. Retrieved September 6, 2012 from http://www.ondostate.gov.ng.

Peres, C.A. & Dolman, P.M. (2000) Density compensation in neotropical primate
communities: evidence from 56 hunted and
nonhunted Amazonian forests of varying
productivity. *Oecologia*, 122: 175–189.

Poulsen, J.R., Clark, C.J. & Bolker, B.M. (2011) Decoupling the effects of logging and hunting on an Afrotropical animal community. *Ecological Applications*, 21: 1819–1836.

Redford, K.H. (1992) The empty forest. *BioScience*, 42, 412-422.

Rist, J., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Cowlishaw, G. & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2009) The importance of hunting and habitat in determining the abundance of tropical forest species in Equatorial Guinea. *Biotropica*, 41: 700–710.

Robinson, J.G. & Bennett, E.L. (2004) Having your wildlife and eating it too: an analysis of hunting sustainability across tropical ecosystems. *Animal Conservation*, 7: 397–408.

St John, F.A.V., Gibbons, J.M., & Edwards-Jones, G. (2010) Testing novel methods for assessing rule breaking in conservation. *Biological Conservation*, 143: 1025–1030.

Taylor, G., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Rowcliffe, M., Kumpel, N., Harfoot, M.B.J., & Fa, J.E. (2015) Synthesising bushmeat research effort in West and Central Africa: a new regional database. *Biological Conservation*, 181, 199–205.

Wilkie, D.S., Starkey, M., Abernethy, K., Effa, E.N., Tefler, P., & Godoy, R. (2005) Role of prices and wealth in consumer demand for bushmeat in Gabon, Central Africa. *Conservation Biology*, 19(1): 268–274.

Willcox, A.S., & Nambu, D.M. (2007) Wildlife hunting practices and bushmeat dynamics of the Banyangi and Mbo people of Southwestern Cameroon. *Biological Conservation*, 134: 251–261.

Wright, S.J. (2003) The myriad consequences of hunting for vertebrates and plants in tropical forests. *Perspectives in Plant Ecology. Evolution and Systematics*, 6: 73–86.