Assessment of zoonotic risk behaviours in particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTGs) from selected tribal areas of Andhra Pradesh

Introduction

Zoonotic diseases are the diseases or infections that are naturally transmissible from vertebrate animals to humans. Zoonotic pathogens may be bacterial, viral, or parasitic, or may involve unconventional agents and can spread to humans through direct contact or through food, water or the environment (World Health Organization, [WHO] 2020) [1] . Zoonotic diseases pose a significant public health risk, especially in rural and tribal communities residing close to wildlife and forest environments. Tribal populations living in forest fringes are particularly vulnerable due to their close interactions with both domestic and wild animals, traditional practices, and limited access to health education and veterinary services. A Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group or PVTGs (previously known as Primitive Tribal Group PTG), in the context of India, is a sub-classification of Scheduled Tribe or section of a Scheduled Tribe that is considered more vulnerable than a regular Scheduled Tribe. (Patel, 1998) [2] (Ministry of Tribal affairs, 2022) [3] . Government of India identified some of the backward tribal groups as "Primitive Tribal Groups" based on low literacy, pre agricultural level of technology, hunting and gathering economy, isolated habitat etc. Based on these criteria, 12 tribal groups had been identified as Primitive Tribal groups including in the State of Andhra Pradesh (Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute (TCRTI), 2023) [4] . In 2006, the Government of India renamed the PTGs as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs)(G Muralidhar, 2014) [5] .

Andhra Pradesh State has the largest concentration of tribal population in South India and occupies 8th position among the states having tribal population in the country. Twelve tribal groups (including sub-groups of certain main tribes) had been identified as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups in Andhra Pradesh. The present study focuses on PVTGs pertaining to selected districts of Andhra Pradesh which includes Alluri Sitharama Raju (ASR) and Polavaram districts. Few mandals from the respective districts were selected for the above said study, which include Paderu, Hukumpeta, G.Madugula and Araku of ASR district. Addateegala, Y.Ramavaram and Gangavaram of Polavaram district. The main tribes in these areas include Kondareddis, Khond, Konda Savara, Gadaba and Porja. The livestock form an integral part of the PVTG's economic system. The animals like cattle, buffalo, goats, sheep and backyard poultry were reared for milk, meat, eggs and also as a ready source of income upon sale. The livestock form an integral part of the PVTG's economic system. The animals like cattle, buffalo, goats, sheep and backyard poultry were reared for milk, meat, eggs and also as a ready source of income upon sale. Some animals like goat, sheep and fowl are considered as sacrificial animals which are sacrificed to appease malevolent spirits lest such spirits may harm them or their crops according to their traditional beliefs (TCRTI, 2023) [4] . Zoonotic risk behaviors are defined as specific human actions or cultural practices that increase the probability of pathogen transmission at the human-animal-environment www.extensionjournal.com interface. These behaviors encompass direct contact with wild or domestic animals, consumption of unpasteurized or undercooked animal products, and occupational exposures in farming or veterinary medicine without adequate biosafety measures (WHO, 2019) [6] . According to the (CDC 2020) [7] , these risks are further exacerbated by environmental encroachment and the lack of protective hygiene practices, which facilitate the "spillover" of infectious agents from animal reservoirs to human populations. These behaviors constitute a significant public health threat, which primarily occur at the human-animal interface. Several zoonotic risk behaviours like bush meat consumption, hunting wild animals in the forest, consuming raw milk, washing animals near canals. Improper handling and disposal of dead carcass, unsafe handling of fetal membranes and following traditional beliefs like hanging fetal membranes to a tree, for better animal milk production were noted.PVTGs identified for their extreme socioeconomic backwardness, isolation and fragile livelihoods, considering these factors, the present study was undertaken to assess zoonotic risk behaviours among PVTG communities in selected tribal areas of Andhra Pradesh and to identify potential practices that may contribute to Zoonotic disease transmission.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The present study was conducted in tribal villages of Alluri Sitharama Raju (ASR) district, major part of the survey was carried out in Paderu mandal and other mandals -G.Madugula, Hukumpeta, Araku and small proportion of survey was carried out in 3 mandals in Polavaram district of Andhra Pradesh. The study area was purposively selected due to vast diversity of tribal population and unique sociocultural landscape, which provides an environment to study traditional practices, livelihood challenges and better understanding for any research regarding indigenous development. Alluri Sitharama Raju (ASR) district is a predominantly tribal and hilly region of Andhra Pradesh, situated on an average elevation of over 900 meters above sea level in the Eastern Ghats. The district receives substantial rainfall, with reported annual averages ranging from 1,290.6 mm to 1,700 mm in higher altitude regions (District Administration, 2026) [8] . Agriculture remains the primary source of livelihood for these communities. The selected tribal areas for the present study are coloured in red in map Fig. 1.

Study design and Data collection

A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess zoonotic risk behaviours among tribal populations. A semi-structured questionnaire was prepared with both open and close ended questions, in the local language to ensure easy understanding among tribal people. The questionnaire included details on socio-demographic characteristics, type of domestic animals, vaccinations, health care facilities, and practices of animal handling, food habits and zoonotic risk behaviours. Data were collected through personal interviews with the respondents at their household/work place. After interviewing every questionnaire was checked thoroughly, questions containing obscure or any misunderstood questionnaire was excluded in the final analysis. The final answers were entered into a computer spreadsheet, Microsoft Excel. www.extensionjournal.com Whether hunting was practiced throughout the year or seasonally? ii.

Whether the hunt was shared among all the people in community or restricted to a family only? iii.

The leftover hunt was stored for how many days/ sold to public? iv.

What animals do you hunt? v.

What weapons do you use? vi.

What is the purpose of hunting?

Risk assessment

A risk scoring method was applied to identify potential zoonotic risk behaviours among the respondents. Risk behaviours such as consumption of bushmeat, hunting of wild animals, handling of animal carcasses and fetal membranes (assisting animals during calving), consuming raw milk, improper disposal of carcasses were assessed.

Data analysis

The collected data were compiled and analyzed using descriptive and statistical data analysis like frequency, percentage, mean, median, chi-square test and fisher's exact test (pvalue). Associations between socio-demographic variables and risk factors were assessed using chi-square test and Fisher's exact test where applicable.

Results

A total of 266 respondents participated in the study. Among them, 186 (70%) were males and 80 (30%) were females.

Regarding educational status, 37.6% of respondents were illiterate, 27% had completed primary education, and 26% had secondary education. The majority of the respondents (88.7%) were engaged in farming as their primary occupation. The distribution of participants according to age group revealed that the highest proportion (60.9%) was observed in the 20-45 years age group. The primary purpose of animal rearing was farming (67.5%), followed by both farming and milk purpose (11.4%), only for sale (7.8%) and milking only (7.2%), while a smaller proportion used animals for meat (6%).

Regarding feeding practices, most animals were grazed (90.4%), whereas 6.6% were maintained under semiintensive systems and only 3% under intensive systems. For water supply, the majority of respondents depended on public water supply (96.6%), while 10.5% used canals, ponds, or tanks as an additional source. Regular animal health check-ups were reported by 53% of respondents. Most respondents reported having healthy animals (90.4%), with 4.8% each of sick and injured animals during the study period. When animals fell sick, the majority of respondents (54.8%) approached animal husbandry assistants for treatment. However, a considerable proportion relied on traditional healers (21.7%) followed by veterinary doctors (17.5%) and while a small percentage (6%) did not seek any treatment. Treatment seeking for livestock were depicted in Fig 5. Majority of respondents (82.5%) kept livestock in separate sheds with relatively hygienic surroundings. Handling of dead carcasses with bare hands was reported by 30% of the respondents indicating a potential risk practice. Very few respondents (17.4%) assisted animals during calving. Washing of animals near canals was reported by 45%. Risky practices such as hunting (17%), home butchering (13.5%), and butchering near canals (7.9%) or throw the slaughter waste or offals near water bodies like streams, canals, ponds and rivers were observed. Carcass burial was practiced by 96%, while 96.4% respondents reported culling of sick animals from healthy animals and take precautions. Consumption of dead animal meat was reported by 12.4%, drinking raw milk was reported by (7.9%), taboos related to food consumption was reported by 4.1% and bush meat consumption was also prevalent but could not be quantified. Consumption and handling of fresh killed wild animal meat has been documented, while negligible proportion of respondents 1.1% kept wild animals as pets. About 3.3% reported being scratched or bitten by wild animals or dogs.

A very small proportion (0.8%) reported sustaining injuries while butchering animals.

Risk scoring

A numerical risk scoring system has been developed to identify the risk levels related to zoonotic risk behaviours.

Statistical analysis of the study

The chi-square and Fi sh er ′s exact test analysis was performed to understand the zoonotic risk behaviours given in Table 6.

The analysis revealed that among the variables studied the variable study area was very strongly significant for consumption of dead animal meat (p>0.003) ast ast. Sex of the respondents was strongly significant for hunting wild animals (p<0.001) ast ast, handling fetal membranes (p<0.001) ast ast and carcass disposal method (p<0.004) ast ast.

Considerable significance was observed for sex with consumption of dead animal meat (p<0.045) ast. Study area was also significant with hunting wild animals (p<0.010) ast, carcass disposal (p<0.014), handling fetal membranes with bare hands (p<0.033) and consumption of bushmeat (p<0.040) ast. Occupation shows significant association with carcass disposal (p<0.010) ast and handling fetal membranes (p<0.038) *.

Discussion

In the present study, among the 266 respondents, 51% reported regular deworming and vaccination of animals which is much lower than respondents in Tamil Nadu which is 92.6% reported by Mariasusai et al. (2025) [9] and vaccination levels (82%) reported by Munyaneza et al.

(2025) [10] in Rwanda's Bugesera district. The present study revealed that regular veterinary health check-ups were inadequately practiced in tribal areas. This finding is in agreement with studies conducted by Rajkumar et al. (2016) [11] in Puducherry, and Singh et al. (2019) [12] in Punjab, which reported poor adoption of preventive animal health practices among livestock farmers. The present study revealed that only 17.5% of respondents consulted veterinary doctors when animals were sick, whereas a majority (54.8%) depended on veterinary assistants for treatment. This indicates a greater reliance on para-veterinary services rather than qualified professionals. Similar trends have been reported in rural and tribal settings, where livestock owners prefer veterinary assistants due to easy accessibility, lower cost, and immediate availability of services. The findings for traditional healers (21.7%), which is higher than those reported in Vizianagaram by Kulakarni et al. 2018 [13] that is (13.8%). Meanwhile, a small percentage (6%) did not seek any treatment for sick animals, which is considerably lower compared to 19% reported by Kulakarni et al. 2018 [13] in Vizianagaram. Majority 99% respondents regularly maintain hygienic surroundings in animal sheds and sanitize animal sheds which is almost similar to reports by Mariasusai et al.

2025 [9] that is 94.6% in Tamil Nadu. Handling of dead carcasses with bare hands was reported by 30% of the respondents indicating a potential risk practice which is lower than findings by Abunna et al. 2024 [14] (77.3%) in Ethiopia, without using any personal protective care handling sick animals. Very few respondents (17.4%) assisted animals during calving in the present study which is much lower than study conducted by Lindahl et al. 2015 [15] (56%) in Tajikistan, whereas Moutos et al. 2022 [16] in Greece reported no precautionary measures when assisting animals in parturition or in the handling of birth material. Risky practices such as hunting (17%) in present study is very much lower (81%) as compared to Subramanian et al.

2012 [17] in Sierra Leone. Dead animal carcass burial was practiced by 96% of respondents which are higher than the practices reported by Dutta et al. 2021 [18] (82.54%), Pattnaik et al. 2022 [19] (83%), and Sambo et al. 2014 [20] (75%) in Bangladesh, Odisha and Tanzania respectively. Regular isolation of sick animals from healthy animals reported by 96.4% respondents which is higher than the (64.3%) reported by Mariasusai et al. 2025 [9] in Tamil Nadu.

The present study revealed that 12.4% proportion of tribal respondents consumed meat from dead animals, which is a significant zoonotic risk behavior which is higher than findings reported by Pattnaik et al. 2022 [19] that is 4.2% of respondents in Odisha tribal communities. Such behaviours prevalent in tribal areas due to socio economic constraints and cultural practices which increase the risk of contracting certain zoonotic diseases like Anthrax. A smaller proportion 7.9% of respondents in the present study reported consumption of raw milk which was lower than the reports of Shukla et al. 2019 [21] (15%) in Surajpur district of Chattisgarh, Abunna et al. 2024 [14] (68.3%) and Tseyega et al. 2012 [22] (94.3%) in Ethiopia.

In the present study 3.3% reported being scratched or bitten by wild animals or dogs compared to studies reported by Ozioko et al. 2018 [23] (88.2%) in South Nigeria. A very small proportion (0.8%) reported sustaining injuries while butchering animals than reported by H Li et al. 2021 [24] (13.5%) in Southern China. The present study identified sex as the primary determinant of high-risk zoonotic risk behaviours, with males showing strong significance with hunting wild animals (p<0.001), handling fetal membranes (p<0.001) ast ast and improper carcass disposal (p<0.004) ast ast. A significant association was observed with consumption of dead animal meat (p<0.045) ast which is similar to the study conducted in Sierra Leone by Subramanian 2012 [17] , where men dominated in hunting, whereas Makhija et al. 2020 [25] in Odisha, showed significant association between men and carcass disposal (p<0.001) ast ast.

The variable study area is significant with hunting wild animals (p<0.010) ast and carcass disposal (p<0.014) * while no statistical significant association was noticed between socio-demographic characteristics on hunting and handling carcasses (p > 0.01) reported by Maideen et al.

2021 [26] in Malaysia. Consumption of dead animal meat (p<0.003) ast ast is strongly significant with the study area, in which similar findings in Odisha reported significant association with sex (male), employed and among illiterate people (p<0.001) ast ast by Makhija et al. (2020) [25] and study in Ethiopia, showed that frequency of raw meat consumption were significantly higher in males (p<0.045) ast. Occupation (farmer) shows significant association with carcass disposal (p<0.010) ast and handling fetal membranes (p<0.038) * as compared to the study conducted by Makhija et al. 2020 [25] in Odisha, males, occupation (employed) and illiterate respondents showed significant association (p<0.001) ast ast.

Conclusion

The present study highlights the awareness on zoonotic diseases and zoonotic risk behaviours among Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) in selected areas of Andhra Pradesh. The observed risk patterns in the study was proven to be associated with illiteracy, low socioeconomic status, poor resources and limited accessibility to the veterinary care. The study recommends setting up surveillance and creating awareness at community level to minimize the zoonotic risk behaviours and promoting the public health.

References

1. Patel BML. Agrarian Transformation in Tribal India. M. D. Publications Pvt. Ltd. 1998; pp.313-315.
2. Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Revised scheme of "Development of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups"-PVTGs. Government of India. 2022. www.extensionjournal.com
3. Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute (TCRTI). Baseline Survey Report on the Primitive Tribal Groups of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad: Department of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 2023.
4. Muralidhar G. Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups, livelihoods today and tomorrow. AKSHARA Network for development support services, Hyderabad; 2014.
5. World Health Organisation (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). Taking a Multisectoral, One Health Approach: A Tripartite Guide to Addressing Zoonotic Diseases in Countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). One Health: Zoonotic Diseases. 2020.
7. District Administration. District Profile: Alluri Sitharama Raju (ASR) District. Government of Andhra Pradesh; 2026.
8. Mariasusai P, Gopalan N, Behera SK, Larebo YM. Knowledge, attitude, and husbandry practices on zoonoses prevention and control among livestock farmers in Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu, India: A crosssectional study. BMC Veterinary Research. 2025;21:610.
9. Munyaneza C, Bizimana F, Mukumbo F, Gatesi S, Sibomana E, Munyampuhwe S, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, practices (KAP), and risk factors toward zoonotic diseases among smallholder livestock farmers in Bugesera district of Rwanda. Frontiers in Public Health. 2025;13:1569682.
10. Rajkumar S, Murugan M, Balakrishnan R. Zoonotic disease awareness among livestock owners in Puducherry, India. Journal of Veterinary Public Health. 2016;14(3):215-224.
11. Singh R, Kaur H, Sharma A. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers in Punjab, India. Punjab Journal of Veterinary Public Health. 2019;11(2):98-107.
12. Kulakarni P, Rao GS, Naidu KV. Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding zoonotic diseases among agricultural workers in Saripalli Village, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology. 2018;16(2):101-110.
13. Abunna F, Mekonnen H, Tadesse G. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward zoonotic disease transmission among farmers in Ada'a District, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Public Health and Veterinary Medicine. 2024;12(1):45-59.
14. Lindahl E, Scollo A, Boqvist S, Magnusson U, Vågsholm I. Knowledge, attitudes and practices related to brucellosis among small-scale dairy farmers in urban and peri-urban Tajikistan. Plos one. 2015;10(9):e0138138.
15. Moutos P, Papadopoulos T, Kritas SK. Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers in rural Greece: Educational gaps and barriers to preventive behaviour. Veterinary Sciences. 2022;9(6):289-301.
16. Subramanian M. Zoonotic disease risk and the bushmeat trade: assessing awareness among hunters and traders in Sierra Leone. EcoHealth. 2012;9(4):471482.
17. Dutta PK, Biswas H, Ahmed JU, Shakif-Ul-Azam M, Ahammed BMJ, Dey AR. Knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) towards anthrax among livestock farmers in selected rural areas of Bangladesh. Veterinary Medicine and Science. 2021;7(5):16481655.
18. Pattnaik S, Behera B, Mohanty S. Socio-behavioral risk factors for anthrax transmission related to consumption, sharing, and trade of dead animal meat in tribal communities of Koraput District, Odisha, India. Journal of One Health and Zoonotic Epidemiology. 2022;4(2):75-85.
19. Sambo M, Cleaveland S, Ferguson HM, Lembo T, Simon C. Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding rabies and its prevention among households in Tanzania. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1-12.
20. Shukla P, Verma A, Sahu R. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices on milk hygiene and milk-borne zoonoses among dairy farmers in tribal areas of Surajpur District, Chhattisgarh, India. Journal of Dairy Public Health and Zoonotic Prevention. 2019;8(4):221-230.
21. Tsegaye D, Gutema FD, Terefe Y. Zoonotic diseases risk perceptions and protective behaviors of consumers associated with consumption of meat and milk in and around Bishoftu, Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2022;8:e10351.
22. Ozioko RE, Okafor CA, Umeh JN. Zoonotic disease awareness among hunters and bushmeat traders in southeast Nigeria. Journal of Wildlife and Public Health. 2018;6(2):89-98.
23. Li H, Daszak F, Chmura A, Zhang Y, Terry P, Fielder M. Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding zoonotic risk in wildlife trade, southern China. EcoHealth. 2021;18(1):95-106.
24. Makhija S, Behera B, Panda D. Awareness of anthrax transmission and associated practices among tribal communities in Lamtaput Block, Koraput District, Odisha, India. Journal of One Health and Zoonotic Diseases. 2020;5(3):157-167.
25. Maideen SFK, Fong LS, Rashid A, Hod R, Shafie INF. Knowledge and practices of bush meat consumption among indigenous people in Belum Forest, Malaysia: An analytical cross-sectional study. Journal of Clinical and Health Sciences. 2021;6(2):44-54.