ArticlePloS one2026
Illegal urban wild meat supply chain characterization: A case study on zoonosis in Lusaka, Zambia.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe illegal wild meat trade poses significant threats to biodiversity and public health. In Zambia, data regarding trade remain limited. This study aimed to analyze its supply chain, perform a broad risk assessment of multiple zoonotic pathogens, and develop a sustainable wild meat trade framework.
methodsA grounded theory-based qualitative study was conducted in Lusaka district between October 2023 and February 2024. Thirty-eight in-depth interviews were carried out with key informants from the government, conservation organizations, academia, butchers, and research sectors. The participants were selected using purposive sampling followed by snowballing. The inclusion criterion was individuals with professional or operational knowledge of the wild meat trade; the exclusion criterion included a lack of relevant expertise or refusal to provide informed consent. The interviews were conducted in English or Nyanja; Nyanja interviews were then translated to English. Interviews were transcribed using Whisper AI, and thematically analyzed using grounded theory by means of NVivo 12.
resultsThe illicit supply chain includes poachers in protected areas, urban-based financiers, middlemen, and urban consumers. The species most commonly traded include buffalo, kudu, impala, warthog, and hippopotamus. The key zoonotic risk factors identified were unhygienic field processing, transport without refrigeration over distances >300 km, species misrepresentation (e.g., anthrax-infected hippopotamus sold as buffalo), and meat consumption from dead or snared animals. Poor enforcement and high demand in Lusaka sustain the trade. A sustainable wild meat trade framework was developed, focusing on community engagement, alternative livelihoods, game farming, and public health education.
conclusionZambia's illegal wild meat trade poses serious zoonotic risks due to unhygienic practices, poor oversight, and species misrepresentation. Reducing these risks requires multisectoral collaboration, stronger enforcement, behavior change strategies, and investment in sustainable livelihood alternatives for communities near protected areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.