Engaging with Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Communities and Their Cats: Human Behaviour Change for Animal and Human Benefit
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Community Engagement Program
2.2. Evaluation Surveys and Analysis
2.2.1. Cross-Sectional Survey
2.2.2. Pre-Post Survey
2.2.3. Targeted Survey
3. Results
3.1. A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Community
3.1.1. Behaviours towards Unowned Cats
3.1.2. Views on the Engagement Program
“they help the strays that no one is interested in…”
“helps out cats by encouraging the community to work together…”
“They were very helpful and kind when helping us get our stray cat Marty in to be looked at…”
“It sounds like a good idea but how can you tell if a cat is unowned or just uncared for?”
“A great idea, if it works in practice.”
“I think it is a good scheme, however I have never encountered a problem with unowned cats but if I was to do so I would help!”
3.2. Pre-Post Survey
3.3. Active Engagement
- 20 provided food for unowned cats;
- 18 posted on BCW Facebook page;
- 17 provided shelter for unowned cats;
- 12 attended a BCW event;
- 11 reported unowned cats;
- 9 volunteered with BCW team.
“Volunteering with Cats Protection is very rewarding and I hope to be volunteering and helping cats and local communities for many years.”
“Without Bulwell cat watch I would not have been able to help as much as I wanted to they provided me with outdoor beds and help.”
Broader Benefits of Participating
“Bulwell cat protection has given me and my community the opportunity to control the epidemic of stray cats and kittens in my community. Much appreciated…”
“It really improved my belief in the care of the cats in the community…”
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Stavisky, J. Too many cats: How owner beliefs contribute to overpopulation. Vet. Rec. 2014, 174, 116–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slater, M.R. The role of veterinary epidemiology in the study of free-roaming dogs and cats. Prev. Vet. Med. 2001, 48, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Askew, N.P.; Vial, F.; Smith, G.C. Status of urban feral cats Felis catus in England: A comparative study. bioRxiv 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparkes, A.H.; Bessant, C.; Cope, K.; Ellis, S.L.H.; Finka, L.; Halls, V.; Hiestand, K.; Horsford, K.; Laurence, C.; MacFarlaine, I.; et al. ISFM Guidelines on Population Management and Welfare of Unowned Domestic Cats (Felis catus). J. Feline Med. Surg. 2013, 15, 811–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilhofer, E.M.; Windschnurer, I.; Troxler, J.; Heizmann, V. Welfare of feral cats and potential influencing factors. J. Vet. Behav. 2019, 30, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreisler, R.E.; Cornell, H.N.; Levy, J.K. Decrease in Population and Increase in Welfare of Community Cats in a Twenty-Three Year Trap-Neuter-Return Program in Key Largo, FL: The ORCAT Program. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, K.; Rand, J.; Morton, J. Trap-Neuter-Return Activities in Urban Stray Cat Colonies in Australia. Animals 2017, 7, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kilgour, R.J.; Magle, S.B.; Slater, M.; Christian, A.; Weiss, E.; DiTullio, M. Estimating free-roaming cat populations and the effects of one year Trap-Neuter-Return management effort in a highly urban area. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longcore, T.; Rich, C.; Sullivan, L.M. Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap–Neuter–Return. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 887–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, P.S.; Boone, J.D.; Briggs, J.R.; Lawler, D.F.; Levy, J.K.; Nutter, F.B.; Slater, M.; Zawistowski, S. Simulating free-roaming cat population management options in open demographic environments. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mcdonald, J.L.; Farnworth, M.J.; Clements, J. Integrating Trap-Neuter-Return Campaigns into a Social Framework: Developing Long-Term Positive Behavior Change Toward Unowned Cats in Urban Areas. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stavisky, J.; Brennan, M.L.; Downes, M.; Dean, R. Demographics and economic burden of un-ownedcats and dogs in the UK: Results of a 2010 census. BMC Vet. Res. 2012, 8, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, C.C.A.; Gruffydd-Jones, T.; Murray, J.K. Number of cats and dogs in UK welfare organisations. Vet. Rec. 2012, 170, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguilar, G.D.; Farnworth, M.J. Distribution characteristics of unmanaged cat colonies over a 20 years period in Auckland, New Zealand. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 37, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguilar, G.D.; Farnworth, M.J. Stray cats in Auckland, New Zealand: Discovering geographic information for exploratory spatial analysis. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 34, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finkler, H.; Terkel, J. The contribution of cat owners’ attitudes and behaviours to the free-roaming cat overpopulation in Tel Aviv, Israel. Prev. Vet. Med. 2012, 104, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finkler, H.; Hatna, E.; Terkel, J. The impact of anthropogenic factors on the behavior, reproduction, management and welfare of urban, free-roaming cat populations. Anthrozoos 2011, 24, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbs, S.J.; White, P.C.L. Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. J. Nat. Conserv. 2012, 20, 364–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinillos, R.G.; Appleby, M.C.; Manteca, X.; Scott-Park, F.; Smith, C.; Velarde, A. One Welfare—A platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet. Rec. 2016, 179, 412–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McLeod, L.J.; Driver, A.B.; Bengsen, A.J.; Hine, D.W. Refining Online Communication Strategies for Domestic Cat Management. Anthrozoos 2017, 30, 635–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attree, P.; French, B.; Milton, B.; Povall, S.; Whitehead, M.; Popay, J. The experience of community engagement for individuals: A rapid review of evidence. Heal. Soc. Care Community 2011, 19, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mattis, J.S.; Hammond, W.P.; Grayman, N.; Bonacci, M.; Brennan, W.; Cowie, S.A.; Ladyzhenskaya, L.; So, S. The social production of altruism: Motivations for caring action in a low-income urban community. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2009, 43, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harkins, C.; Shaw, R.; Gillies, M.; Sloan, H.; Macintyre, K.; Scoular, A.; Morrison, C.; Mackay, F.; Cunningham, H.; Docherty, P.; et al. Overcoming barriers to engaging socio-economically disadvantaged populations in CHD primary prevention: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canvin, K.; Marttila, A.; Burstrom, B.; Whitehead, M. Tales of the unexpected? Hidden resilience in poor households in Britain. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 69, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government English Indices of Deprivation 2015. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015 (accessed on 1 June 2018).
- Michie, S.; van Stralen, M.M.; West, R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 2011, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NVivo, Q.S.R. Qualitative Data Analysis Program; QSR International Pty Ltd.: Melbourne, Australia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team, R. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Swarbrick, H.; Rand, J. Application of a Protocol Based on Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) to Manage Unowned Urban Cats on an Australian University Campus Helen. Animals 2018, 8, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, P.M.; Swannack, T.M.; Lopez, R.R.; Slater, M.R. Evaluation of euthanasia and Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs in managing free-roaming cat populations. Wildl. Res. 2009, 36, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, N. Community belonging and health. Heal. Rep. 2002, 13, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
- Hystad, P.; Carpiano, R.M. Sense of community-belonging and health-behaviour change in Canada. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2012, 66, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loss, J.; Lindacher, V.; Curbach, J. Online social networking sites—A novel setting for health promotion? Heal. Place 2014, 26, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol. Inq. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, H.; Seibert, S.E.; Hills, G.E. The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 1265–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piliavin, J.A.; Siegl, E. Health Benefits of Volunteering in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2007, 48, 450–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seligman, M.E.P.; Csikszentmihalyi, M. Positive psychology: An introduction. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Szolnoki, G.; Hoffmann, D. Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys—Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research. Wine Econ. Policy 2013, 2, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Behaviour Cited | Percentage (n = 882 Behaviours) |
---|---|
Provide food | 20% |
Adopt a stray | 17% |
Neuter | 13% |
Report them to a charity or organisation perceived to be able to help | 13% |
Provide water | 8% |
Provide shelter | 8% |
Trap them | 5% |
Provide veterinary care | 4% |
Classification | Question | Aware of BCW (n = 139) | Not Aware of BCW Watch (n = 330) | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Actual behaviour | Have provided or helped arrange neutering for unowned cats e.g., by reporting cats to charity. | 30% (n = 42) | 13% (n = 44) | Χ2 = 17.51, df = 1, p < 0.001 |
Behavioural intentions | Likely to take or arrange neutering for unowned cats e.g., by reporting cats to charity. | 86% (n = 120) | 72% (n = 237) | Χ2 = 10.55, df = 1, p = 0.001 |
Change in behavioural intentions | More likely to report unowned cats now compared to previous years. | 68% (n = 95) | 56% (n = 186) | Χ2 = 5.39, df = 1, p = 0.02 |
Classification | Question | Pre-BCW Survey | Post-BCW Survey | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge | Disagree that related cats will not mate with each other. | 52% (n = 11) | 57% (n = 12) | Χ2 = 0, df = 1, p = 1 |
Agree that neutering reduces anti-social behaviour, such as wailing and spraying. | 62% (n = 13) | 52% (n = 11) | Χ2 = 0.1, df = 1, p = 0.75 | |
Disagree that female cats should be allowed to have kittens before being neutered. | 52% (n = 11) | 67% (n = 14) | Χ2 = 0.8, df = 1, p = 0.37 | |
Everyone in the community are responsible for looking after unowned cats. | 24% (n = 5) | 38% (n = 8) | Χ2 = 0.36, df = 1, p = 0.55 | |
Those in the community with an interest in the cats are responsible for looking after unowned cats. | 9% (n = 2) | 57% (n = 12) | Χ2 = 6.75, df = 1, p = 0.009 * | |
It is important that unowned cats are provided with shelter. | 67% (n = 14) | 86% (n = 18) | Χ2 = 1.5, df = 1, p = 0.22 | |
It is important that unowned cats are neutered. | 90% (n = 19) | 90% (n = 19) | Χ2 = 0, df = 1, p = 1 | |
Behaviour | Have provided food for unowned cats. | 24% (n = 5) | 62% (n = 13) | Χ2 = 6.12, df = 1, p = 0.01 * |
Have provided shelter for unowned cats. | 24% (n = 5) | 29% (n = 6) | Χ2 = 0, df = 1, p = 1 | |
Have provided water or milk for unowned cats. | 24% (n = 5) | 62% (n = 13) | Χ2 = 3.5, df = 1, p = 0.06 | |
Have provided vet treatment for unowned cats. | 9% (n = 2) | 9% (n = 2) | Χ2 = 0, df = 1, p = 1 | |
Have provided vaccinations for unowned cats. | 9% (n = 2) | 9% (n = 2) | Χ2 = 0, df = 1, p = 1 | |
Have provided or helped arrange neutering for unowned cats e.g., by reporting cats to charity. | 9% (n = 2) | 29% (n = 6) | Χ2 = 1.1, df = 1, p = 0.29 | |
Behavioural intentions | Likely to take or arrange neutering for unowned cats e.g., by reporting cats to charity. | 29% (n = 6) | 76% (n = 16) | Χ2 = 8.1, df = 1, p = 0.004 * |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
McDonald, J.L.; Clements, J. Engaging with Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Communities and Their Cats: Human Behaviour Change for Animal and Human Benefit. Animals 2019, 9, 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040175
McDonald JL, Clements J. Engaging with Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Communities and Their Cats: Human Behaviour Change for Animal and Human Benefit. Animals. 2019; 9(4):175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040175
Chicago/Turabian StyleMcDonald, Jenni L., and Jane Clements. 2019. "Engaging with Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Communities and Their Cats: Human Behaviour Change for Animal and Human Benefit" Animals 9, no. 4: 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040175
APA StyleMcDonald, J. L., & Clements, J. (2019). Engaging with Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Communities and Their Cats: Human Behaviour Change for Animal and Human Benefit. Animals, 9(4), 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040175