Cargando…
Guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis
OBJECTIVES: This study used computer simulation modeling to estimate and compare costs of different free-roaming cat (FRC) management options (lethal and non-lethal removal, trap–neuter–return, combinations of these options and no action) and their ability to reduce FRC population abundance in open...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9511502/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34842477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098612X211055685 |
_version_ | 1784797654792798208 |
---|---|
author | Benka, Valerie A Boone, John D Miller, Philip S Briggs, Joyce R Anderson, Aaron M Slootmaker, Christopher Slater, Margaret Levy, Julie K Nutter, Felicia B Zawistowski, Stephen |
author_facet | Benka, Valerie A Boone, John D Miller, Philip S Briggs, Joyce R Anderson, Aaron M Slootmaker, Christopher Slater, Margaret Levy, Julie K Nutter, Felicia B Zawistowski, Stephen |
author_sort | Benka, Valerie A |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: This study used computer simulation modeling to estimate and compare costs of different free-roaming cat (FRC) management options (lethal and non-lethal removal, trap–neuter–return, combinations of these options and no action) and their ability to reduce FRC population abundance in open demographic settings. The findings provide a resource for selecting management approaches that are well matched for specific communities, goals and timelines, and they represent use of best available science to address FRC issues. METHODS: Multiple FRC management approaches were simulated at varying intensities using a stochastic individual-based model in the software package Vortex. Itemized costs were obtained from published literature and expert feedback. Metrics generated to evaluate and compare management scenarios included final population size, total cost and a cost efficiency index, which was the ratio between total cost and population size reduction. RESULTS: Simulations suggested that cost-effective reduction of FRC numbers required sufficient management intensity, regardless of management approach, and greatly improved when cat abandonment was minimized. Removal yielded the fastest initial reduction in cat abundance, but trap–neuter–return was a viable and potentially more cost-effective approach if performed at higher intensities over a sufficient duration. Of five management scenarios that reduced the final population size by approximately 45%, the three scenarios that relied exclusively on removal were considerably more expensive than the two scenarios that relied exclusively or primarily on sterilization. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: FRCs present a challenge in many municipalities, and stakeholders representing different perspectives may promote varying and sometimes incompatible population management policies and strategies. Although scientific research is often used to identify FRC impacts, its use to identify viable, cost-effective management solutions has been inadequate. The data provided by simulating different interventions, combined with community-specific goals, priorities and ethics, provide a framework for better-informed FRC policy and management outcomes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9511502 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95115022022-09-27 Guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis Benka, Valerie A Boone, John D Miller, Philip S Briggs, Joyce R Anderson, Aaron M Slootmaker, Christopher Slater, Margaret Levy, Julie K Nutter, Felicia B Zawistowski, Stephen J Feline Med Surg Original Articles OBJECTIVES: This study used computer simulation modeling to estimate and compare costs of different free-roaming cat (FRC) management options (lethal and non-lethal removal, trap–neuter–return, combinations of these options and no action) and their ability to reduce FRC population abundance in open demographic settings. The findings provide a resource for selecting management approaches that are well matched for specific communities, goals and timelines, and they represent use of best available science to address FRC issues. METHODS: Multiple FRC management approaches were simulated at varying intensities using a stochastic individual-based model in the software package Vortex. Itemized costs were obtained from published literature and expert feedback. Metrics generated to evaluate and compare management scenarios included final population size, total cost and a cost efficiency index, which was the ratio between total cost and population size reduction. RESULTS: Simulations suggested that cost-effective reduction of FRC numbers required sufficient management intensity, regardless of management approach, and greatly improved when cat abandonment was minimized. Removal yielded the fastest initial reduction in cat abundance, but trap–neuter–return was a viable and potentially more cost-effective approach if performed at higher intensities over a sufficient duration. Of five management scenarios that reduced the final population size by approximately 45%, the three scenarios that relied exclusively on removal were considerably more expensive than the two scenarios that relied exclusively or primarily on sterilization. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: FRCs present a challenge in many municipalities, and stakeholders representing different perspectives may promote varying and sometimes incompatible population management policies and strategies. Although scientific research is often used to identify FRC impacts, its use to identify viable, cost-effective management solutions has been inadequate. The data provided by simulating different interventions, combined with community-specific goals, priorities and ethics, provide a framework for better-informed FRC policy and management outcomes. SAGE Publications 2021-11-29 2022-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9511502/ /pubmed/34842477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098612X211055685 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Benka, Valerie A Boone, John D Miller, Philip S Briggs, Joyce R Anderson, Aaron M Slootmaker, Christopher Slater, Margaret Levy, Julie K Nutter, Felicia B Zawistowski, Stephen Guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis |
title | Guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis |
title_full | Guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis |
title_fullStr | Guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis |
title_short | Guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis |
title_sort | guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9511502/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34842477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098612X211055685 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT benkavaleriea guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis AT boonejohnd guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis AT millerphilips guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis AT briggsjoycer guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis AT andersonaaronm guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis AT slootmakerchristopher guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis AT slatermargaret guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis AT levyjuliek guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis AT nutterfeliciab guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis AT zawistowskistephen guidanceformanagementoffreeroamingcommunitycatsabioeconomicanalysis |