Social vulnerability assessment of dog intake location data as a planning tool for community health program development: A case study in Athens-Clarke County, GA, 2014-2016

Autoři: Jessie L. Dyer aff001;  Lisa Milot aff002
Působiště autorů: Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America aff001;  Athenspets, Inc., Athens, Georgia, United States of America aff002;  School of Law, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article


A retrospective spatial analysis of dog intake data from an open admission animal shelter in Georgia was conducted to explore patterns within dog demographics and outcomes by pickup location or by the home address of the person who transferred ownership rights of the dog to Athens-Clarke County Animal Control during the period 2014–2016. Spatial analysis found the relationship between these intake locations and the final disposition of the dogs to be non-random, suggesting social and environmental influences on distribution. Statistically significant clusters were identified using the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic. This study found statistically significant hot spots (i.e., areas with higher than expected values) and cold spots (i.e., areas with lower than expected values) for the intake of dogs with known health issues, physically neglected dogs, juveniles, and adults. Only statistically significant hot spots were found for socially neglected dogs and dogs whose final disposition was euthanasia due to severe health or behavioral issues. Given the close relationship between humans and dogs, this study explores the association of impounded dog clusters and a previously developed social vulnerability index. Social vulnerability is the product of social inequalities and inequalities related to the human-built environment. The social vulnerability index provides one tool for understanding the differences in characteristics of dogs from different intake locations. Results of this study indicate the utility of non-animal focused data as a planning tool for community programs and to allow for efficient allocation of limited resources for veterinary and other community outreach programs.

Klíčová slova:

Animal behavior – Animal sociality – Census – Collective animal behavior – Dogs – Euthanasia – Health informatics – Pets and companion animals


1. Rowan A, Kartal T. Dog Population & Dog Sheltering Trends in the United States of America. Animals (Basel). 2018;8(5).

2. Dogs and cats released from animal shelters or animal control agencies; sterilization requirement., (2019).

3. Frank JM, Carlisle-Frank PL. Analysis of programs to reduce overpopulation of companion animals: Do adoption and low-cost spay/neuter programs merely cause substitution of sources? Ecological Economics. 2007;62(3–4):740–6.

4. Frank J. An interactive model of human and companion animal dynamics: the ecology and economics of dog overpopulation and the human costs of addressing the problem. Human Ecology. 2004;32(1):107–30.

5. Kass PH, New JC Jr, Scarlett JM, Salman MD. Understanding animal companion surplus in the United States: Relinquishment of nonadoptables to animal shelters for euthanasia. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2001;4(4):237–48.

6. Olson P, Moulton C. Pet (dog and cat) overpopulation in the United States. Journal of reproduction and fertility Supplement. 1993;47:433–8.

7. White SC, Jefferson E, Levy JK. Impact of publicly sponsored neutering programs on animal population dynamics at animal shelters: the New Hampshire and Austin experiences. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2010;13(3):191–212. doi: 10.1080/10888700903579903 20563902

8. Rowan AN. Shelters and pet overpopulation: A statistical black hole. Anthrozoös. 1992;V(3):140–14.

9. National Council on Pet Population 1994. Available from:

10. Turner P, Berry J, MacDonald S. Animal shelters and animal welfare: Raising the bar. The Canadian Veterinary Journal. 2012;53(8):893. 23372200

11. Owner surrender resources: Lifeline Aniimal Project: Dekalb County Animal Enforcement; 2019. Available from:

12. Gershman KA, Sacks JJ, Wright JC. Which dogs bite? A case-control study of risk factors. Pediatrics. 1994;93(6):913–7.

13. Horowitz A. Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Animal Cognition. 2009;12(1):107–18. doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0175-y 18679727

14. Patronek G, Glickman L, Moyer M. Population dynamics and the risk of euthanasia for dogs in an animal shelter. Anthrozoös. 1995;8(1):31–43.

15. Siracusa C, Provoost L, Reisner IR. Dog-and owner-related risk factors for consideration of euthanasia or rehoming before a referral behavioral consultation and for euthanizing or rehoming the dog after the consultation. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2017;22:46–56.

16. Haraway DJ. When species meet. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press; 2013.

17. Hankin SJ. Not a living room sofa: Changing the legal status of companion animals. Rutgers JL & Pub Pol'y. 2006;4:314–410.

18. Zawistowski S, Morris J, Salman MD, Ruch-Gallie R. Population dynamics, overpopulation, and the welfare of companion animals: new insights on old and new data. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 1998;1(3):193–206. doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0103_1 16363965

19. Pet Trusts 2019. Available from:

20. Patronek G. Use of geospatial neighborhood control locations for epidemiological analysis of community-level pet adoption patterns. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 2010;71(11):1321–30. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.71.11.1321 21034323

21. Patronek G. Mapping and measuring disparities in welfare for cats across neighborhoods in a large US city. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 2010;71(2):161–8. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.71.2.161 20113223

22. Weiss E, Patronek G, Slater M, Garrison L, Medicus K. Community partnering as a tool for improving live release rate in animal shelters in the United States. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2013;16(3):221–38. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2013.803816 23795686

23. UNDP. Reducing disaster risk: A challenge for development: United National Development Programme; 2004. Available from:

24. Flanagan BE, Gregory EW, Hallisey EJ, Heitgerd JL, Lewis B. A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 2011;8(1–22).

25. Waitman J, Caeiro G, Gonzalez SAR, Re DP, Daghero A, Gonzalez CD, et al. Social vulnerability and hypoglycemia among patients with diabetes. Endocrinologia, Diabetes y Nutricion. 2017;64(2):92–9. doi: 10.1016/j.endinu.2016.11.008 28440783

26. Bizimana J-P, Twarabamenye E, Kienberger S. Assessing the social vulnerability to malaria in Rwanda. Malaria Journal. 2015;14(1):2–.

27. Cope MR, Slack T. Emplaced social vulnerability to technological disasters: Southeast Louisiana and the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Population and Environment. 2017;38(3):217–41.

28. Zahran S, Peek L, Snodgrass JG, Weiler S, Hempel L. Economics of disaster risk, social vulnerability, and mental health resilience. Risk Analysis: An International Journal. 2011;31(7):1107–19.

29. Pedraza DF, Bezerra TA. Nutritional status of children under five years living in area of social vulnerability of Campina Grande, Paraíba State. Acta Scientiarum Health Sciences. 2016;38(1):81–8.

30. Gay JL, Robb SW, Benson KM, White A. Can the social vulnerability index be used for more than emergency preparedness? An examination using youth physical fitness data. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2016;13(2):121–30. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2015-0042 27029324

31. Demographics: Athens-Clarke County; 2019. Available from:

32. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012. Current Population Reports US Census Bureau. 2013.

33. Animal Control: Athens-Clarke County; 2019. Available from:

34. Fidler M, Coleman P, Roberts A. Empathic response to animal suffering: Societal versus family influence. Anthrozoös. 2000;13(1):48–51.

35. Landau RE, Beck A, Glickman LT, Litster A, Widmar NJO, Moore GE. Use of veterinary services by Latino dog and cat owners with various degrees of English-language proficiency. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2016;248(6):681–9. doi: 10.2460/javma.248.6.681 26953923

36. US pet ownership & demographics sourcebook: American Veterinary Medical Association; 2012.

37. Segurson SA, Serpell JA, Hart BL. Evaluation of a behavioral assessment questionnaire for use in the characterization of behavioral problems of dogs relinquished to animal shelters. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2005;227(11):1755–61. doi: 10.2460/javma.2005.227.1755 16342523

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12
Nejčtenější tento týden