Detailed Assessment of Pet Ownership Rates in Four Underserved Urban and Rural Communities in the United States

Hawes, Sloane M.; Hupe, Tess M.; Gandenberger, Jaci; Saucedo, María López; Arrington, Amanda K.; Morris, Kevin N.

doi:10.1080/10888705.2021.1871736

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To do so, we developed an approach to translate the perceived benefits and risks of owning a pet into ES and the disservices and NCP frameworks based on a social survey, and implemented it for the case of the Moscow megapolis. While there is a wealth of studies on values associated with owning a pet in the urban environment [25,45,46], to the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to fit them into ES classifications. We used CICES classification for ES and NCP to showcase how reasons for owning a pet translate into ecosystem services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing urbanization has led to a significant increase in the number of pets and has altered the relationships between pets and owners from primarily utilitarian to cultural (e.g., entertainment and health improvement). Existing classifications of ecosystem services (ES) (e.g., CICES) and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) explicitly consider only the ES provided by livestock and wild animals. This study attempted to translate perceived benefits and costs from owning pets (dogs or cats) in a megapolis into ES and disservices frameworks. The data were collected via an online questionnaire distributed through social media among residents of Moscow (Russia). The study showed that pets contribute to the well-being of city dwellers, for which owners are willing to put up with some potential risks and also bear monetary costs. Reasons for owning a pet have been translated into ES and NCPs ranging from regulating (4%) to provisioning (1%). However, cultural services linked to mental (26%) and physical (32%) health, spiritual, symbolic interaction (19%), and educational values (16%) have been the most prominent group. Considering an increase in pet owners, the interests and needs of this distinct stakeholder group need to be taken into account in urban planning and management. Pets’ integration into classifications and thus assessments of the urban ES can be a crucial step towards achieving this goal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To understand the total number of pets who could potentially benefit from PFL services, a detailed assessment of pet ownership was conducted during the first year of the study in each of the four study communities. The measured rate of pet ownership in each of the study sites was: Madison 58.6%, Seattle 48.1%, Granger 64.7%, and Wilder 64.9% (35). Using a wait list control design, one site in each of the pairs received the PFL intervention (Madison, WI and Granger, WA), while the other site served as a comparison community (Seattle, WA and Wilder, ID).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, it is important to note that the correlations observed in this study between the presence of PFL in a community and higher perceived access to care are not evidence of direct causation. It is possible that the observed differences between the intervention and comparison communities could be driven by community-level differences that existed before PFL was present and/or developed during the study period, such as differences in baseline pet ownership rates (35) or demographic differences (e.g., cultural, linguistic) between the sites that were not controlled for within the original site matching criteria. The site matching criteria limited the study sites to communities with high rates of poverty and high racial/ethnic diversity, which limits the generalizability of these findings to communities with differing demographic profiles.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Changes in Perceptions of Access to Pet Support Care in Underserved Communities

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding social, economic, and structural barriers to accessing pet care services is important for improving the health and welfare of companion animals in underserved communities in the U.S. From May 2018-December 2019, six questions from the validated One Health Community Assessment were used to measure perceptions of access to pet care in two urban and two rural zip codes. One urban and one rural community received services from a pet support outreach program (Pets for Life), while the other served as a comparison community. After propensity score matching was performed to eliminate demographic bias in the sample (Urban = 512 participants, Rural = 234 participants), Generalized Estimating Equations were employed to compare the six measures of access to pet care between the intervention and comparison communities. The urban community with the Pets for Life intervention was associated with a higher overall measure of access to pet care compared to the urban site that did not have the Pets for Life intervention. When assessing each of the six measures of access to care, the urban community with the Pets for Life intervention was associated with higher access to affordable pet care options and higher access to pet care service providers who offer payment options than the community without the Pets for Life intervention. Further analyses with a subset of Pets for Life clients comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention survey responses revealed statistically significant positive trends in perceptions of two of the six measures of access to pet care. This study provides evidence that community-based animal welfare programming has the potential to increase perceptions of access to pet support services.

show abstract

“…There are few studies on dog ownership from urban regions of India [ 19 ] and Sri Lanka [ 20 ]. Rural communities have shown a higher rate of pet and dog ownership than urban communities, suggesting the potential for beneficial impacts of human-companion animal interactions [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The above facts show that Anuradhapura is a good representation of a rural region that can provide insights into low-middle-income, Southern Asian countries. Further, information on pet ownership at the community level would help identify trends in pet services, frame public strategy, plan animal sheltering and organize animal welfare programmes [ 21 , 24 ]. Moreover, identifying socio-demographic predictors associated with pet ownership would help consider potential confounders in One Health initiative and human-animal interaction studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Household preferences for pet keeping: Findings from a rural district of Sri Lanka

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pet ownership is an integral part of a modern-day family. It provides a wide range of benefits to humans. However, data on pet ownership are relatively limited from rural regions, Southern Asia and low-middle-income countries. We aim to report the prevalence and associated factors for pet ownership and veterinary visits in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. A community-based, cross-sectional study was conducted. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used. Binary logistic regression was performed to determine significant associations between variables of interest and pet ownership (p < 0.05). Out of the 532 households, 57% currently owned a pet. The most common pet was the dog owned by 41% of the households and the cat was the second most owned by 17%. Security (69% - 152/220) was the most common role for dogs at home while it was companionship for cats (31% - 27/88) and hobby for both birds (64% - 18/28) and fish (54% - 14/26). Most dogs (54% - 118/220) had one veterinary visit within the last year. Households with >1 adult female [p = 0.02; OR = 1.61 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.36)], participants living alone [p = 0.03; OR = 0.24 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.86)] and Buddhists [p = 0.02; OR = 2.56 (95% CI 1.16 to 5.63)] were significantly associated with pet ownership. Pet ownership is common among people in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, with a few demographic factors having a significant association with pet ownership. Dogs are the most common type of pet and highlight the opportunity for research related to canine companionship and human health. Future research on such topics should consider the above-mentioned socio-demographic predictors as potential confounders.

show abstract

Detailed Assessment of Pet Ownership Rates in Four Underserved Urban and Rural Communities in the United States

Cited by 13 publications

References 11 publications

Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective

Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective

Measuring Changes in Perceptions of Access to Pet Support Care in Underserved Communities

Household preferences for pet keeping: Findings from a rural district of Sri Lanka

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About