. 2017 May 30;13(1):143.

doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1051-2.

Scoping review of indicators and methods of measurement used to evaluate the impact of dog population management interventions

Elly Hiby¹, Kate Nattrass Atema², Rebecca Brimley², Alexandra Hammond-Seaman³, Mark Jones⁴, Andrew Rowan⁵, Emelie Fogelberg⁶, Mark Kennedy⁷, Deepashree Balaram⁸, Louis Nel⁹, Sarah Cleaveland¹⁰, Katie Hampson¹⁰, Sunny Townsend¹⁰, Tiziana Lembo¹⁰, Nicola Rooney¹¹, Helen Rebecca Whay¹¹, Joy Pritchard¹¹, Jane Murray¹¹, Lisa van Dijk¹¹, Natalie Waran¹², Heather Bacon¹², Darryn Knobel¹³, Lou Tasker¹⁴, Chris Baker¹⁵, Lex Hiby¹⁶

Affiliations

¹ ICAM Coalition, c/o IFAW International HQ, Yarmouth Port, MA, USA. ellyhiby@gmail.com.
² ICAM Coalition, c/o IFAW International HQ, Yarmouth Port, MA, USA.
³ RSPCA International, Horsham, West Sussex, UK.
⁴ Born Free Foundation, Horsham, UK.
⁵ HSI, NW Washington, D.C, USA.
⁶ World Animal Protection, London, UK.
⁷ Kennedy Animal Welfare Consultancy, Colchester, UK.
⁸ Global Alliance for Rabies Control, Kansas, USA.
⁹ Global Alliance for Rabies Control and Dept of Microbiology, NAS, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
¹⁰ The Boyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute for Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
¹¹ Animal Welfare and Behaviour, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
¹² JMICAWE, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, the University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK.
¹³ Center for Conservation Medicine and Ecosystem Health, Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, Basseterre, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
¹⁴ Independent animal welfare and behaviour consultant, Derbyshire, UK.
¹⁵ The Center for Animals and Public Policy, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, North Grafton, MA, USA.
¹⁶ Conservation Research Ltd, Cambridge, UK.

PMID: 28558736
PMCID: PMC5450220
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-017-1051-2

Scoping review of indicators and methods of measurement used to evaluate the impact of dog population management interventions

Elly Hiby et al. BMC Vet Res. 2017.

. 2017 May 30;13(1):143.

doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1051-2.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ ICAM Coalition, c/o IFAW International HQ, Yarmouth Port, MA, USA. ellyhiby@gmail.com.
² ICAM Coalition, c/o IFAW International HQ, Yarmouth Port, MA, USA.
³ RSPCA International, Horsham, West Sussex, UK.
⁴ Born Free Foundation, Horsham, UK.
⁵ HSI, NW Washington, D.C, USA.
⁶ World Animal Protection, London, UK.
⁷ Kennedy Animal Welfare Consultancy, Colchester, UK.
⁸ Global Alliance for Rabies Control, Kansas, USA.
⁹ Global Alliance for Rabies Control and Dept of Microbiology, NAS, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
¹⁰ The Boyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute for Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
¹¹ Animal Welfare and Behaviour, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
¹² JMICAWE, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, the University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK.
¹³ Center for Conservation Medicine and Ecosystem Health, Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, Basseterre, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
¹⁴ Independent animal welfare and behaviour consultant, Derbyshire, UK.
¹⁵ The Center for Animals and Public Policy, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, North Grafton, MA, USA.
¹⁶ Conservation Research Ltd, Cambridge, UK.

PMID: 28558736
PMCID: PMC5450220
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-017-1051-2

Abstract

Background: Dogs are ubiquitous in human society and attempts to manage their populations are common to most countries. Managing dog populations is achieved through a range of interventions to suit the dog population dynamics and dog ownership characteristics of the location, with a number of potential impacts or goals in mind. Impact assessment provides the opportunity for interventions to identify areas of inefficiencies for improvement and build evidence of positive change.

Methods: This scoping review collates 26 studies that have assessed the impacts of dog population management interventions.

Results: It reports the use of 29 indicators of change under 8 categories of impact and describes variation in the methods used to measure these indicators.

Conclusion: The relatively few published examples of impact assessment in dog population management suggest this field is in its infancy; however this review highlights those notable exceptions. By describing those indicators and methods of measurement that have been reported thus far, and apparent barriers to efficient assessment, this review aims to support and direct future impact assessment.

Keywords: Dog; Impact assessment; Indicators; Population management; Scoping review; Stray dog.

PubMed Disclaimer

Cited by

Impact Assessment of Free-Roaming Dog Population Management by CNVR in Greater Bangkok.
Hiby E, Rungpatana T, Izydorczyk A, Rooney C, Harfoot M, Christley R. Hiby E, et al. Animals (Basel). 2023 May 23;13(11):1726. doi: 10.3390/ani13111726. Animals (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37889632 Free PMC article.
Size, demography, ownership profiles, and identification rate of the owned dog population in central Italy.
Carvelli A, Scaramozzino P, Iacoponi F, Condoleo R, Della Marta U. Carvelli A, et al. PLoS One. 2020 Oct 15;15(10):e0240551. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240551. eCollection 2020. PLoS One. 2020. PMID: 33057370 Free PMC article.
Priorities for Research into the Impact of Canine Surgical Sterilisation Programmes for Free-Roaming Dogs: An International Priority Setting Partnership.
Collinson A, Brennan ML, Dean RS, Stavisky J. Collinson A, et al. Animals (Basel). 2021 Jul 30;11(8):2250. doi: 10.3390/ani11082250. Animals (Basel). 2021. PMID: 34438707 Free PMC article.
Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis: Applications in Veterinary Medicine.
Sargeant JM, O'Connor AM. Sargeant JM, et al. Front Vet Sci. 2020 Jan 28;7:11. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00011. eCollection 2020. Front Vet Sci. 2020. PMID: 32047759 Free PMC article.
Financial and Socio-Economic Effects of Investment in the Context of Dog Population Management.
Ćetković J, Žarković M, Knežević M, Cvetkovska M, Vujadinović R, Rutešić S, Beljkaš Ž, Grujić M, Adžić B. Ćetković J, et al. Animals (Basel). 2022 Nov 17;12(22):3176. doi: 10.3390/ani12223176. Animals (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36428403 Free PMC article.

See all "Cited by" articles

References

1. Hughes J, Macdonald DW. A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biol Conserv. 2013;157:341–351. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.005. - DOI
1. Beran GW. Ecology of dogs in the Central Philippines in relation to rabies control efforts. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 1982;5:265–270. doi: 10.1016/0147-9571(82)90047-9. - DOI - PubMed
1. De Balogh K, Wandeler A, Meslin F-X. A dog ecology study in an urban and a semi-rural area of Zambia. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 1993;60:437–443. - PubMed
1. Davlin SL, Vonville HM. Canine rabies vaccination and domestic dog population characteristics in the developing world: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2012;30:3492–3502. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.069. - DOI - PubMed
1. HSI. U.S. shelter and adoption estimates. 2015. http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownersh.... Accessed November 30, 2015.

Publication types

Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Grants and funding

207569/Z/17/Z/WT_/Wellcome Trust/United Kingdom

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
- scite Smart Citations

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Scoping review of indicators and methods of measurement used to evaluate the impact of dog population management interventions

Affiliations

Scoping review of indicators and methods of measurement used to evaluate the impact of dog population management interventions

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Similar articles

Cited by

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Other Literature Sources