The emergence of infectious diseases of zoonotic origin highlights the need to understand social practices at the animal-human interface. This study provides a qualitative account of interactions between humans and wild animals in predominantly Mende villages of southern Sierra Leone. We conducted fieldwork over 4 months including participant and direct observations, semi-structured interviews (n = 47), spontaneously occurring focus group discussions (n = 12), school essays and informal interviews to describe behaviours that may serve as pathways for zoonotic infection. In this region, hunting is the primary form of contact with wild animals. We describe how these interactions are shaped by socio-cultural contexts, including opportunities to access economic resources and by social obligations and constraints. Our research suggests that the potential for exposure to zoonotic pathogens is more widely distributed across different age, gender and social groups than previously appreciated. We highlight the role of children in hunting, an age group that has previously not been discussed in the context of hunting. The breadth of the" at risk" population forces reconsideration of how we conceptualize, trace and monitor pathogen exposure.
Recent occurrences of infectious disease outbreaks involving pathogens such as Lassa virus, Ebola virus and simian retroviruses have led to increasing concern about emerging zoonoses [1]. The probability of a zoonotic infection depends in part upon the frequency and nature of contact between animal hosts and humans [2]. Thus, in addition to the biological aspects of pathogen transmission, zoonotic diseases must be understood as resulting from social processes. Social science approaches are therefore an essential component in the study of infectious diseases [3]. More specifically, the environmental, social, cultural and economic aspects of animal-human interactions must be studied alongside human and animal behaviours to determine pathways for infections [2]. As a socially dense, gendered and sometimes secretive activity, hunting is a prime topic for in-depth social scientific analysis. Hunting and butchering wild animals poses a significant risk for transmission because such activities expose humans to animal secretion and fluids through bites, scratches and handling organs [4]. Outbreaks of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), for instance, have been directly attributed to handling various wild mammal species during hunting or as carrion [5]. Hunting has been a major topic in disciplines such as anthropology, including in West and Central Africa [6–8]. However, the public health dimensions of these animal-human interactions are only beginning to be subject of sustained ethnographic consideration [9–12]. The multifaceted nature of animal-human interactions can pose considerable methodological challenges for research, particularly when such practices are hidden or secretive. Hunting, for instance, can be forbidden by law or custom; it can be associated with disease; and it can involve practices or knowledge that amplify social status or satisfy social requirements. The 2013–2016 EVD outbreak in West Africa heightened these ambiguities following a ban on hunting, sale and consumption of meat from wild animals. Using questionnaire surveys to investigate sensitive topics may introduce systemic bias [13–15]. In particular, children are more difficult to study through quantitative survey techniques and their role as a potential group at risk from zoonotic infection remains largely unrecognized. Such difficulties can be alleviated by immersive qualitative and open-ended study based on building trusting relationships, developed over lengthy periods of time. Long-term qualitative studies allow researchers to build a rapport with informants that can reveal information not accessible through other methods. Open-ended approaches, with a strong observational component, facilitate understanding of behaviours at the animal-human interface that are routinized and/or controversial [16]. Anthropological studies of animal-human interactions such as hunting and butchering practices can offer a critical entry point to understanding zoonotic risk dynamics [17,18]. Ethnographic approaches help to frame public health understanding of the ways different social groups engage with animals and can inform the design of disease surveillance measures. Understanding the drivers of animal-human interactions is important when designing risk prevention strategies. Further, a fuller appreciation of such interactions can help to contextualize research in zoonotic disease ecology. This is of particular use in West Africa following the renewed interest in zoonotic disease ecology in the region with the presence of numerous wild animal reservoirs for zoonotic pathogens, including Lassa virus [19] and ebolavirus, which has possibly been circulating in West Africa for decades [20–22]. The aim of this study was to provide a finely grained description of human actors and behaviours that may serve as pathways for zoonotic infection from wild animals, and to understand the drivers behind these behaviours.
The fieldwork was conducted in the Southern (Bo, Pujehun and Moyamba districts) and Eastern (Kenema district) Province of Sierra Leone (Fig 1). We conducted fieldwork in urban and rural locations. Bo City is the second largest city of Sierra Leone and its inhabitants are involved in a range of economic activities including small-scale trading and salaried employment. Bo City borders swamps and grasslands merging into a mosaic of swidden farmland and secondary forests. In rural locations, three villages were chosen based on previous fieldwork and familiarity with the field researchers. These villages (between 6 and 12km from the outskirts of Bo City) were visited at a minimum twice weekly during the fieldwork and provided the core of the data collected. Six other villages, identified through snowball sampling, were chosen to represent more isolated areas (up to 40–50km from a major town) but were only visited between 1 and 4 times. Villagers depend on fishing, hunting, swidden farming, cultivation of small plots and small-scale trade for subsistence and income. Fieldwork was conducted for a total of 4 months in 2015 (August, September, November, and December), overlapping the rainy (May–October) and dry seasons (October–May). We also draw on interviews and observations collected in May and June 2014 from the same study site. Some of the fieldwork took place during the EVD outbreak, although we worked in districts without active cases during fieldwork. Given the sensitive nature of our research during the EVD epidemic, we began by visiting informants known to us through previous fieldwork. Transects through villages, forests and swidden served to identify people engaging in behaviours of interest. We conducted semi-structured interviews and informal discussions until data saturation was achieved. The discussions were conducted in English, Mende or Krio (creole English). Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The questions were pre-determined and covered food security, local gastronomy and forms of interactions with wild animals, which included their practical and symbolic significance. A separate question set covered the impact of the EVD epidemic and is discussed elsewhere. Photos of wild animal species were used to determine vernacular names and ensure accuracy of translation. Although the interview guides were pre-defined, questions were posed in an informal manner to encourage discussion. The observation guides used for direct and participatory observations covered forms of direct and indirect contact between humans and wild animals. Participatory observations were mainly done with trusted informants. Informants were given the opportunity to ask questions about the link between wild animals and EVD. Our answers covered risk factors for zoonotic infection and current hunting regulations. Thereafter, no attempt was made to challenge the activities observed, except to encourage basic biosecurity measures when handling animal carcasses. We set two simple written essay questions for children aged 14 to 16 years attending the school of village A. The questions asked children to describe an animal that lives in the bush and to describe the last hunt in which they participated. Recordings and field notes were immediately transcribed into English by the field researchers (JB and MK) using Word 2011 (Microsoft Corp. , Redmond, WA). The data was rendered anonymous from the onset and shared online with the research team. Analysis was carried out continuously and interview and observation guides were amended iteratively. Triangulation was obtained with three field researchers (JB, MK and MD) and multiple methods of data collection. Coding was done in MS Word 2011 using a thematic analysis. A priori codes included forms of interactions with wild animals, use of wild animals and food security. Inductive codes were applied to understand the social, cultural and economic context of these interactions. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Government of Sierra Leone and the University of Exeter. Participants were provided with information sheets that were read out. We emphasized that participants did not have to answer questions and could end their participation at any time without consequences. Written and oral consent was obtained from the respondent or a parent for participants under 18 years.
The Mende classify animals into three broad categories: livestock, pets (dogs and cats) and wild animals (“bush animals”). The term “bush animals” refers to species that live in or outside of villages but are not domesticated. Villagers discuss these primarily as a crop pest (e. g. rodents) or as resource to be exploited. “Bush animals” have individual vernacular names in Mende. In the following text, we group species according to their size, ranging from small (small rodents, squirrel, mongoose, bat, bird, amphibians, reptiles), medium (Gambian pouched rat, cane rat, brush tailed porcupine, genet cat, small non-human primates), and large species (forest antelope and forest hog). We set out with about 7 adult hunters and a dozen children (aged around 6–12), most of whom carried nets on their head. Everyone brought their own cutlass (I brought one to fit in,) and dogs obediently followed their owners’ steps. You could tell that both dogs and people were excited by the hunt, and as we made our way through the bush, everyone became progressively quieter. The first hunt was unsuccessful and we moved to a second area (about a kilometer from the previous one), again unsuccessful. To get there, we passed along a long fence with many traps set along it. The third hunt was successful; a grass cutter (cane rat) got tangled in the net and was jumped upon by the hunters. They kept it alive until I got there and then killed it by punching his head in (you cannot used a cutlass as it destroys the net). Relatively fast to unconsciousness, no more than 7 seconds. Blood everywhere. The kill was immediately handed to a boy (who was very proud of it) and ran away in the bush with it on his shoulders. The hunt continued again and we moved twice more until the hunt was declared over (field notes from a communal hunt DO-04A). The only preparation methods for meat that we observed involved singing the hair, followed by gutting and butchering (Fig 5). When selling meat to traders, hunters usually sell the entire carcass because of the higher price it will receive. In this instance, the market seller butchers the carcass. Only certain parts of animals are not eaten (nails, hooves, and horns). The gut and the gall bladder are the only viscera that are consistently removed, as they are deemed to taste bad and be poisonous. Some people choose to remove the genital organs because of the smell. Any unwanted organs are thrown away, fed to dogs, or kept for use as bait in fish and crustacean traps. Bones are eaten entirely unless too big, in which case they are broken and the marrow is sucked out, which is particularly prized by some. Preparation is not gender specific. Cooking is done over a fire. It involves grilling meat over the fire, frying it in palm oil, boiling it in water, or more often, a combination of all. Leftover meat can be conserved by smoking it over a fire. Palm oil brought to boiling point is widely believed to kill pathogens and other impurities in food, such as rodent poison, which is occasionally used to protect swidden. While the majority of people prefer eating well-cooked meat and gag at the suggestion of eating raw meat, two people stated that they prepared a soup from boiled meat that retains raw blood, as it is considered more “nourishing” in terms of protein, as well as better tasting: “[We] let the blood just escape a little and then (laughs) we start eating it [the meat]. Sometimes we do not cook it, we do not cook, we only put it on the fire, make it look fine then we eat it. And then you will really eat and enjoy it” (urban farmer, IDI-05B). During our observations, carcasses were always handled with bare hands and blood was rinsed off with water or sometimes with chlorine water, which is present in villages since the EVD outbreak.
The most common activity placing humans in contact with wild animals observed in our study was hunting and slaughtering, which are associated with zoonotic disease infections and disease emergence [24]. Understanding how differences in demographic, socio-cultural and economic characteristics influence such activities is important to inform pathogen surveillance and prevention measures. Our research suggests that the “conventional” narrative of hunting and its role in pathogen transmission is incomplete. Previous research on hunting in Western and Central Africa commonly describes an activity conducted by adult males, while butchering and trading wild meat is done by women who are exposed to fluids through cuts and scratches [25–27]. This narrative of the “cut hunter” attributes pathogen emergence to “bushmeat hunters” who are invariably assumed to be adult males [11]. In addition, children are rarely thought of as being in contact with wild animals despite being presumed index cases in at least three EVD outbreaks [28–30]. Further, to our knowledge, questionnaire surveys looking at exposure to wild animals do not recruit subjects below 15 years of age [25–27,31], yet we frequently recorded hunting among children below this age group. One study on animal-human contacts in Uganda suggests that children from the age of 3 years are exposed to non-human primates, however these results were derived from adults responding on behalf of their children [32]. We previously showed that hunting of small rodents is more widely distributed across age, gender lines and social groups than previously appreciated [14]. In our present study, we sought to determine whether such observations were also pertinent to other species of wild animals, in particular those species that are not present in domestic spaces (as small rodents are) and might be associated with different hunting norms. While our research confirms that among the Mende, hunting is, indeed, considered a traditional adult male activity—the respective roles of hunting and fishing among men and women reflecting divisions of activities that mark gender identity [6,8]—we find that children and women are significant actors in complex collaborative practices for catching and preparing wild animals. With the exception of large species that are deemed physically dangerous and are associated with witchcraft (buffalo, forest hogs, leopards), the participation of women and children does not conform to assumed gender and age-related roles. Rather, hunting, slaughter, consumption and trade of wild animals are determined by individual circumstances and practicalities. Crucially, contact with wild animals often involves children who, compounded by traditional family hierarchy related to food access, frequently engage in high-risk practices during hunting and preparing meat from wild animals. Thoroughly cooking meat is considered sufficient to inactivate EVD in blood, but consuming undercooked meat, which was reported by children and adults for different reasons, is likely to present a risk of infection [33] and a similar degree of risk may exist when consuming bone marrow. Not all species of wild animals present the same risk of transmitting zoonotic pathogens. For example, certain species of fruit bats are suspected reservoirs for ebolavirus [34] and although we did find some villages organizing bat hunts, we did not find any evidence of systematic bat trade. This could however be specific to ethnic groups or villages and requires further investigation. Other species of mammals including duiker antelopes and NHPs are susceptible to ebolavirus [35,36] and hunting sick animals or scavenging carrion is a major risk for ebolavirus infection [5]. We did not identify any particular taboos against eating species that are known to pose a risk for zoonotic diseases, or against collecting fresh carrion, however we did not consistently ask whether people would eat sick wild animals. The process of trapping does not allow trappers to monitor the health of animals before killing them. Further, raw meat is widely distributed across commercial and social networks, with the potential to spread pathogens, with limited possibility for monitoring or traceability. Species, and their associated pathogens, are distributed according to criteria related to market value. Many of the taxa associated with zoonotic pathogens, such as small rodents [37] and bats, have little market value, and are mostly kept for personal consumption and inter-village trade. Children privilege such small sized taxa for their ease of hunting and their low market value, an observation also reported in a nutritional survey of animal species consumed among children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [38]. We documented occurrences of urban hunting in fringe sites of Bo City, which suggests that such anthropogenic ecotones should be targeted in disease prevention strategies. Although such zones have previously been associated with pathogen emergence [39], our findings stand in contrast to common intervention designs which assume, incorrectly, that there is little contact between humans and animals in urban zones, as has recently been described in Uganda [32]. Sierra Leone has one of the highest rates of malnutrition and child under-nutrition in the world [40]. In this context of chronic food insecurity, disposing of hunted or trapped game—an important source of nutriments for growth [38,41]—is rarely an option, especially where access to alternative sources (fish or domestic animals) is scarce or expensive. Family hierarchies prioritise protein consumption among adults, which compounds the difficulty faced by children in obtaining animal protein, encouraging them to hunt. We previously reported how the consumption of rodents is strongly linked to food security [14] and extend this observation to other wild animals that are considered a threat to crops, on which the Mende are highly dependent. The link between crop protection and species hunted has been illustrated in the Eastern Province of Sierra Leone, where cacao farmers were observed to commonly eat monkeys (a cacao pest) hunted on their farms [6]. Adult informants also discussed wild meat in terms of taste, perceived therapeutic and nutritional value, and as a source of income generation, as previously reported in Western and Central Africa [42,43]. Social, political and economic processes can influence host-pathogen dynamics, for example through changes in reservoir abundance and contact with reservoir hosts [44]. Comparing current practices with accounts from older informants, we described how social changes have modified interactions between humans and wild animals. Communal hunting was discouraged in post-civil war policies because it had been used as a means for village chiefs to impose their authority upon subjects and test for political dissent [8]. This coincided with an increase in fast reproducing, resilient species such as rodents that thrive in a modified agricultural landscape [45]. Previous studies have shown how changes in agricultural practices can influence biodiversity and lead to adaptions in hunting practices, for example “garden hunting” near domestic spaces [46] and trade of wild meat [47]. Such observations support our data that the increasingly small size of animals hunted no longer justify sacrificing time for communal hunting and could explain the reported increase in the use of traps and focus on trapping smaller species, with the potential for changes in zoonotic pathogen ecology. Post-war policies also directly influenced hunting practices by imposing a firearm ban, making bats more difficult to hunt in Sierra Leone compared to Guinea where shotguns are common, and cartridges are loaded with grit to kill large numbers of bats (Bonwitt, J. ; pers. obs.). Our fieldwork was affected by the EVD epidemic. Sensitization messages erroneously emphasized the risk of infection through contact with wild animals and hunting was penalized. These measures raised the degree of respondent anxiety on the topic of hunting. The quality of discussions often considerably improved when we refrained from recording interviews. For ethical concerns, the research team answered frequent questions about the risks of ebolavirus infection from wild animals, which arose during discussions and may have affected our results. Our presence initially generated suspicion; however this was minimized thanks to our work in the area prior to the epidemic. Through observations, discussions and participatory observations, we learned to discern the subtle traces of hunting and trapping activities, such as people with hunting nets or concealed rifles, concealed traps or a cleaned village (a punishment imposed for letting prey escape). Despite these reassurances, we cannot exclude the possibility that we underestimated the frequency of certain behaviours of interest or missed some altogether. Although we describe behaviours occurring among women and children, the majority of our semi-structured interviews were conducted with males (70%). However, much of our data was obtained, and indeed strengthened from spending time in villages, conducting participatory observations and informal interviews with women and children. Our research could have benefited from more interviews with women, for which a female field researcher would have been beneficial. Our study could have been enriched by quantitative data. However, we sought to address the paucity of qualitative data on hunting as explored from a public health perspective. In providing a finely grained description on hunting practices we hope that our results will broaden the scope of future quantitative research on this topic. Our observations corroborate previous studies of hunting throughout West and Central Africa [6,11,25–27,31,32] but emphasize the social nuances of the practice by expanding on the diversity of actors, social norms and motivations involved. The “cut hunter” narrative which assumes most hunters to be adult males has underpinned disease intervention strategies, and remains a subject of debate and research [48]. Previous research has shown the need to expand beyond the “bushmeat paradigm” to include other forms of animal-human contacts as risks for zoonotic infections and that are unrelated to hunting practices [32]. Yet even within the much studied “bushmeat paradigm”, we find that the diversity of actors hunting wild animals and the breadth of the" at risk" population forces reconsideration in how we conceptualize, trace and monitor pathogen exposure. These results also underscore the challenges of interventions, surveillance, research and sensitization campaigns. To address such complexity, intervention strategies should become more diversified and context-specific. In particular the role of children should be recognised; specific intervention strategies should be tailored to children’s specific hunting practices. Finally, our findings provide a base for further investigations to determine risk factors for zoonotic infections in the West African region. A better understanding of the interactions between humans and reservoir hosts can help to elucidate the mechanisms of disease spillover into human populations in Sierra Leone [49] by linking epidemiological, ecological and ethnographic data.
Studying how and why humans interact with animals is important to understand the transmission of zoonotic diseases (infectious diseases transmitted from animals to humans) and how to prevent and control them. We conducted a qualitative study to understand how and why people come into contact with wild animals in the Southern province of Sierra Leone, a region with numerous wildlife species known to carry zoonotic diseases. Previous studies on hunting in sub-Saharan Africa principally describe adult men as hunters and adult women as retailers of meat from wild animals. Based on our results, we seek to broaden the category of people deemed “at risk” of zoonotic diseases through hunting by including women and children. In particular, because of their limited physical abilities and social position, children hunt under different circumstances than those of adults. Our results have implications for zoonotic disease research and prevention, for example by ensuring children are integrated in health interventions and that their unique reasons to hunt are taken into account during such processes.
animal types
children
medicine and health sciences
zoonotic pathogens
animal pathogens
pathology and laboratory medicine
pathogens
diet
vertebrates
animals
mammals
animal products
age groups
nutrition
animal behavior
meat
zoology
families
fruit bats
food
infectious diseases
zoonoses
behavior
agriculture
people and places
rodents
wildlife
bats
biology and life sciences
population groupings
hunting behavior
amniotes
organisms
Participation of women and children in hunting activities in Sierra Leone and implications for control of zoonotic infections