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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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