Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
4.2
3.0
Journals
Animals
Special Issues
Urban Animal Welfare Policies and Practices
share announcement

Urban Animal Welfare Policies and Practices

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615). This special issue belongs to the section "Animal Welfare".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 May 2021) | Viewed by 48838

Special Issue Editor

Prof. Dr. Laura A. Reese

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Urban and Regional Planning and Political Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Interests: urban politics and public policy; economic development; animal welfare policy; local governance and management
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Collegaues,

Humans have never been the only animals to live in cities and, as the world becomes ever more urbanized, the number and array of animal species sharing urban spaces are only increasing. All too often, cities are perceived as if they were solely the domain of their human residents, including the welfare of nonhuman animals in urban research in a way that informs public policy has implications for a variety of issues such as how cities are organized; infrastructure is upgraded and sited; ordinances are developed to enhance animal welfare while protecting human health and safety; criminal activity is addressed; the interests of a variety of urban residents are conceptualized and represented; and sprawl impacts the presence of wildlife in cities.

There are two primary reasons that human and nonhuman animals share cities: Humans have intruded on the spaces of nonhuman animals, and nonhuman animals have followed humans there. Urban sprawl has caused cities to spread into previously undeveloped areas. Thus, some animals formerly in more rural spaces have been swallowed up into cities, creating relict populations and inevitable interactions between human and nonhuman animals. While the forces of urban growth have led to increasing numbers of animals in cities, the opposite is also true. For deindustrializing and depopulating cities, increasing greenspace provides environments for a number of nonhuman animals to survive and thrive in formerly urbanized areas. Animals also reside in cities as the result of human habitation either because they have been brought there with humans as pets or because they opportunistically have followed humans there due to the prevalence of food and other human waste products.

Because of the density and interaction of human and nonhuman animals in urban spaces, consideration of animal welfare issues and policies to enhance welfare are particularly acute. This Special Issue of Animals will focus on such issues. The goal of the issue is to provide both interdisciplinary and global perspectives; the list below highlights some of the possible research topics of interest. Policy-relevant research is particularly welcome.

  • Comparison of local animal control and welfare ordinances and their effectiveness;
  • Structural arrangements for local animal welfare and control: public versus nonprofit approaches, service networks, funding arrangements;
  • Applications of One Health/One Welfare;
  • Effectiveness of extant local policies: trap–neuter–return, breed specific legislation, legal protections for roaming animals, animal cruelty regulations;
  • Programs to enhance animal welfare: education versus regulation;
  • Cultural differences in urban pet keeping and animal welfare;
  • The merits of differing approaches to shared animal welfare concerns;
  • Identification of the most pressing urban animal welfare issues; current and future;
  • Methods to reduce animal cruelty;
  • Development and use of databases to assess and study urban animal welfare issues.

Please note that Animals is an open access journal but publication fees of the papers published by 31 May 2021 will be covered by a grant from Michigan State University. 

Prof. Laura A. Reese
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • animal welfare policy
  • nonhuman animals in cities
  • comparative animal welfare policy
  • One Health/One Welfare
  • urbanization and nonhuman animals

Published Papers (7 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

17 pages, 4359 KiB  
Article
Cats Are Not Fish: A Ricker Model Fails to Account for Key Aspects of Trap–Neuter–Return Programs
by Peter J. Wolf, Rachael E. Kreisler and Julie K. Levy
Animals 2021, 11(7), 1928; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani11071928 - 28 Jun 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2585
Abstract
In a frequently cited 2005 paper, a Ricker model was used to assess the effectiveness of trap–neuter–return (TNR) programs for managing free-roaming domestic cat populations. The model (which was originally developed for application in the management of fisheries) used data obtained from two [...] Read more.
In a frequently cited 2005 paper, a Ricker model was used to assess the effectiveness of trap–neuter–return (TNR) programs for managing free-roaming domestic cat populations. The model (which was originally developed for application in the management of fisheries) used data obtained from two countywide programs, and the results indicated that any population reductions, if they existed, were at best modest. In the present study, we applied the same analysis methods to data from two long-term (i.e., >20 years) TNR programs for which significant population reductions have been documented. Our results revealed that the model cannot account for some key aspects of typical TNR programs, and the wild population swings it predicts do not correspond to the relative stability of free-roaming cat populations. A Ricker model is therefore inappropriate for use in assessing the effectiveness of TNR programs. A more recently developed, stochastic model, which accounts for the movement of cats in and out of a given area, is better suited for predicting the sterilization effort necessary to reduce free-roaming cat numbers through TNR programs. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Animal Welfare Policies and Practices)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 225 KiB  
Article
A Retrospective Analysis of Typologies of Animal Abuse Recorded by the SPCA, Hong Kong
by Amanda Whitfort, Fiona Woodhouse, Shuping Ho and Marsha Chun
Animals 2021, 11(6), 1830; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061830 - 19 Jun 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 6157
Abstract
We conducted a retrospective study of 254 suspected cruelty offences recorded by the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) between January 2013 and December 2019. Cases were categorised into four types of abuse: active maltreatment, passive neglect, commercial [...] Read more.
We conducted a retrospective study of 254 suspected cruelty offences recorded by the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) between January 2013 and December 2019. Cases were categorised into four types of abuse: active maltreatment, passive neglect, commercial exploitation and hoarding. Attributes of defendants, relationship with the owner of the animal (where the owner was not the defendant) and the circumstances of the abuse (species of animal, number of animals involved, type of harm, need for medical care, number of animals seized) were recorded for each case. The majority of prosecuted cases involved traumatic physical injury to dogs, with 30% causing the death of animals. The second most common type of harm prosecuted was neglect, with 27% of cases causing death. The majority of neglect cases involved dogs abandoned inside private premises without food/water. The median number of animals hoarded was 47, with dogs the most common species. The majority of hoarders had collected their animals from strays. The largest hoarding cases (>100 animals) were operating as animal rescue shelters. Strategies to address cruelty to animals in Hong Kong can be informed by an understanding of which species are at greater risk of harm and in what circumstances this harm might occur. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Animal Welfare Policies and Practices)
13 pages, 1027 KiB  
Article
Survey on the Presence of Bacterial, Fungal and Helminthic Agents in Off-Leash Dog Parks Located in Urban Areas in Central-Italy
by Valentina Virginia Ebani, Simona Nardoni, Stefania Ciapetti, Lisa Guardone, Enrico Loretti and Francesca Mancianti
Animals 2021, 11(6), 1685; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani11061685 - 05 Jun 2021
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 4016
Abstract
Off-leash dog parks are designated public spaces where dogs can move freely, under their owners’ supervision. These areas, allowing animals to socialize and move freely, are fundamental for dogs’ welfare. However, different pathogens, even zoonotic, may be excreted by the attending animals and [...] Read more.
Off-leash dog parks are designated public spaces where dogs can move freely, under their owners’ supervision. These areas, allowing animals to socialize and move freely, are fundamental for dogs’ welfare. However, different pathogens, even zoonotic, may be excreted by the attending animals and contaminate the environment. The aim of the present study was to verify the occurrence of bacterial, fungal and parasitic pathogens in off-leash dog parks located in Florence (central Italy). Between March and May 2019, 83 fecal samples, 43 soil samples and 23 water samples (from fountains and puddles) collected from 26 off-leash fenced areas were examined. Fecal samples scored positive for Yersinia spp. (n = 7), Listeria innocua (n = 4), Toxocara canis eggs (n = 2) and Ancylostoma caninum/Uncinaria stenocephala eggs (n = 1). Keratinophilic geophilic fungi (mostly Microsporum gypseum /A. incurvatum) were recovered from 43 soil samples belonging to 23 out of 26 parks, along with Microsporum canis in a single case. Prototheca spp. was never isolated from water samples, while Trichosporon sp. was cultured in two cases, alone and in association with Geotrichum candidum. These results show that dogs did not act as important carriers for the investigated bacterial and parasitic pathogens, although examined areas may represent a risk for the spreading of some dermatophytoses to both pets and their owners. Periodical examinations to assess the main bacteriological, parasitological and mycological pathogens in different samples collected in off-leash dog parks should be carried out in a One-Health perspective. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Animal Welfare Policies and Practices)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 245 KiB  
Article
Animal Cruelty and Neighborhood Conditions
by Laura A. Reese, Joshua J. Vertalka and Cassie Richard
Animals 2020, 10(11), 2095; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani10112095 - 11 Nov 2020
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 6352
Abstract
Background: Animal cruelty appears to be widespread. Competing theories have been posed regarding the causes of animal cruelty leading to conflicting findings and little direction for public policies to combat it. Objective: To assess the applicability of extant theories of the causes of [...] Read more.
Background: Animal cruelty appears to be widespread. Competing theories have been posed regarding the causes of animal cruelty leading to conflicting findings and little direction for public policies to combat it. Objective: To assess the applicability of extant theories of the causes of animal cruelty: domestic violence; deviance; perpetrator traits; and social disorganization. Methods: Data are drawn from police department reports of animal cruelty in the City of Detroit from 2007 to 2015; 302 incidences of animal cruelty were reported. Multiple regression is used to determine the theory which best appears to account for animal cruelty. Results: Common types of animal cruelty in Detroit are shooting; blunt force trauma; neglect; and dogfighting. While most incidents involve unknown persons; cruelty by owners; neighbors; and domestic partners is also common. Neighborhood conditions in terms of economic stress; vacancy and blight; and crime appear to have the greatest impact on animal cruelty. Conclusions: The findings from Detroit support deviance and social disorganization theories of animal cruelty. Neighborhood conditions in terms of economic stress, vacancy and blight, and crime appear to have the greatest impact on animal cruelty in this urban area. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Animal Welfare Policies and Practices)
12 pages, 542 KiB  
Article
The Impact of Targeted Trap–Neuter–Return Efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area
by Daniel D. Spehar and Peter J. Wolf
Animals 2020, 10(11), 2089; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani10112089 - 11 Nov 2020
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 12007
Abstract
Recently, a growing collection of evidence that associates trap–neuter–return (TNR) programs with substantial and sustained reductions in community cat populations across a variety of environments has emerged. Peer-reviewed studies emanating from the northeastern, midwestern, and southeastern United States, as well as Australia, document [...] Read more.
Recently, a growing collection of evidence that associates trap–neuter–return (TNR) programs with substantial and sustained reductions in community cat populations across a variety of environments has emerged. Peer-reviewed studies emanating from the northeastern, midwestern, and southeastern United States, as well as Australia, document such reductions. The present study expands upon this body of evidence by examining the impact of a long-term TNR program on a population of community cats residing on a pedestrian trail adjacent to an oceanic bay located on the West Coast of the U.S. A population of 175 community cats, as determined by an initial census, living on a 2-mile section of the San Francisco Bay Trail declined by 99.4% over a 16-year period. After the conclusion of the initial count, the presence of cats was monitored as part of the TNR program’s daily feeding regimen. Of the 258 total cats enrolled in the program between 2004 and 2020, only one remained at the end of the program period. These results are consistent with those documented at the various sites of other long-term TNR programs. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Animal Welfare Policies and Practices)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 273 KiB  
Article
Human–Wildlife Coexistence in Urban Wildlife Management: Insights from Nonlethal Predator Management and Rodenticide Bans
by Christian Hunold and Maz Mazuchowski
Animals 2020, 10(11), 1983; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani10111983 - 28 Oct 2020
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 6127
Abstract
Conceptions of human–wildlife coexistence that acknowledge nonhuman wild animals as fellow urban dwellers with legitimate claims on shared urban spaces are starting to influence urban wildlife management practices. Insofar as at least some wild animals have successfully achieved membership in urban society, how [...] Read more.
Conceptions of human–wildlife coexistence that acknowledge nonhuman wild animals as fellow urban dwellers with legitimate claims on shared urban spaces are starting to influence urban wildlife management practices. Insofar as at least some wild animals have successfully achieved membership in urban society, how has this revaluation affected how urban wildlife is governed? Our interpretive policy analysis explores this question in two areas of urban wildlife management where practices are becoming less lethal: predator management and rodent control. A directed qualitative content analysis of U.S. urban wildlife management plans and rodent control strategies reveals a shift from conflict to coexistence as the basis for understanding human–wildlife relations in urban settings. Indiscriminate killing of urban wildlife is condemned as unethical as well as impractical, and lethal control figures as a measure of last resort that must be rationally justified. Commensal rodents, however, do not benefit from this shift toward coexistence between humans and nonhuman species. Campaigns to restrict the use of rodenticides are intended to protect carnivores, not the rodents themselves. Though urban wildlife management is consistent with some elements of the vision of multispecies flourishing developed by human–animal studies scholars, not all species benefit equally from this transition, and the legitimacy of wild animals’ claims on shared urban spaces often remains contingent on their good behavior. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Animal Welfare Policies and Practices)

Other

Jump to: Research

8 pages, 209 KiB  
Commentary
Punishment to Support: The Need to Align Animal Control Enforcement with the Human Social Justice Movement
by Sloane M. Hawes, Tess Hupe and Kevin N. Morris
Animals 2020, 10(10), 1902; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani10101902 - 16 Oct 2020
Cited by 23 | Viewed by 8584
Abstract
Due to inherent and systemic biases, animal control policies in the US are over-enforced in low-income communities and communities of color, resulting in worse health outcomes for the pets in these communities. These outcomes are exemplified by higher confiscation, relinquishment, and euthanasia rates, [...] Read more.
Due to inherent and systemic biases, animal control policies in the US are over-enforced in low-income communities and communities of color, resulting in worse health outcomes for the pets in these communities. These outcomes are exemplified by higher confiscation, relinquishment, and euthanasia rates, lower return to owner rates, and extended lengths of stay in animal shelters. The Humane Communities framework operationalizes One Health and One Welfare concepts to comprehensively address issues of inequity at both the individual and structural levels to improve animal control policy and outcomes. Person-centered and culturally competent policies and programs that focus resources on addressing root causes of pet health and welfare issues as opposed to an emphasis on code enforcement can create more positive, scalable, and sustainable improvements in human, other animal, and environmental health and welfare outcomes. This shift from punishment-oriented approaches to support-based models of animal control aligns the animal welfare field with the modern human social justice movement. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Animal Welfare Policies and Practices)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-7
Back to TopTop