Understanding the Factors Influencing Cat Containment: Identifying Opportunities for Behaviour Change
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
- (1)
- Capability: An individual’s physical and psychological ability to perform a behaviour. For example, does the cat owner have the physical skills or knowledge and cognitive skills to contain their cat. Interventions that increase capability incorporate techniques that educate, train and provide personal support.
- (2)
- Opportunity: The physical and social factors external to an individual that prompt or enable a behaviour to occur. For example, does the cat owner have access to the relevant containment resources, and do they have support from family, neighbours and community to keep their cat contained. Interventions that increase opportunity incorporate techniques that: provide access, enable, facilitate, prompt or constrain.
- (3)
- Motivation: Factors internal to an individual that energise or direct behaviour. These factors can be either reflective (incorporating conscious deliberation and reasoning) or automatic (usually outside conscious control, e.g., impulse, habitual or emotional) [35]. For example, a cat owners’ decision to contain their cat may occur after careful cost-benefit deliberation, after their cat experienced a traumatic traffic incident or because that is what they have always done. Interventions that increase motivation incorporate techniques that: inform, persuade, discuss, demonstrate, incentivise or coerce.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Questionnaire
2.2. Questionnaire
3. Results
3.1. Participant Characteristics
- Cat owners who practiced a night curfew were significantly older (mean 48.9 years) than both owners who 24 h contained their cats (mean 45.2 years) and owners who allowed their cats to 24 h roam (mean 44.8 years) (F = 29.41, df = 2, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.01).
- Male cat owners were more likely to allow their cat(s) to 24 h roam than female owners (15% vs. 10%; Pearson Χ2 = 14.01, df = 4, p = 0.01, r = 0.04).
- There was no statistical difference in containment behaviours between urban and regional locations (Pearson Χ2 = 5.08, df = 2, p = 0.08, r = 0.03).
- Cat owners who rented were more likely to 24 h contain their cat than those who owned their home (74% vs. 62%; Pearson Χ2 = 46.42, df = 2, p < 0.001, r = 0.09).
- Owners living in an apartment or unit were more likely to 24 h contain their cat than owners living in free-standing houses (82% vs. 59%; Pearson Χ2 = 182.80, df = 2, p < 0.001, r = 0.18).
- Owners without access to outdoor spaces at their homes were more likely to 24 h contain their cat than owners with access (73% vs. 63%; Pearson Χ2 = 25.75, df = 2, p < 0.001, r = 0.07).
- Cat owners who owned five cats or more were more likely to 24 h contain their cats compared to cat owners who owned one cat (75% vs. 62% Pearson Χ2 = 23.19, df = 8, p = 0.003, r = 0.05).
3.2. COM Theme Reliability and Comparisons
3.3. Variables Influencing Cat Free-Roaming Behaviour
3.4. Reasons for Allowing Cats to Roam
3.5. Cat Owner Segmentation
- All four COM themes (MANOVA F = 326.91, df = 20, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.49; Capability F = 84.81, df = 5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.21; Social opportunity F = 892.98, df = 5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.74; Cat Welfare Motivation F = 460.15, df = 5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.59; Community motivation F = 242.16, df = 5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.86);
- Age (F = 12.21, df = 5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04);
- Future intentions (MANOVA F = 70.04, df = 10, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.18; Prevent from roaming more often F = 99.54, df = 5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.24; Keep 24 h contained F = 110.99, df = 5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.26);
- Current containment behaviour (Pearson Χ2 = 39.62, df = 5, p < 0.001, r = 0.15);
- Location (Pearson Χ2 = 17.43, df = 5, p < 0.01, r = 0.10);
- Gender (Pearson Χ2 = 11.04, df = 5, p = 0.05, r = 0.07) (Figure 5).
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- -
- 6 a.m.—noon.
- -
- Noon—6 p.m.
- -
- 6 p.m.—Midnight
- -
- Midnight—6 a.m.
- -
- Cats should be free to roam wherever they choose.
- -
- Cats should be prevented from roaming freely to protect wildlife.
- -
- Cats should be prevented from roaming freely to keep them safe.
- -
- Cats should be prevented from roaming freely as it is good for their wellbeing.
- -
- Cats should be prevented from roaming freely as they can be viewed as a nuisance or unwelcome visitors by neighbours.
- -
- Cats do not like being prevented from roaming freely.
- -
- I am confident I can prevent my cat roaming freely at all times.
- -
- I am confident that I can provide everything my cat needs to ensure he/she is happy when not roaming.
- -
- The law should be changed to require pet cats to be kept at their owner’s property at all times.
- -
- Preventing cats roaming freely is a practice that my family and friends would agree with.
- -
- Preventing cats roaming freely is a practice that my neighbours would agree with.
- -
- Preventing cats roaming freely is a practice that veterinarians would agree with.
- -
- Preventing cats roaming freely is a practice that other cat owners would agree with.
- -
- Cats should be prevented from roaming freely if in the future it is required by law.
- -
- Preventing my cat roaming freely is difficult in my current residential circumstances.
- -
- Prevent my cat/s from roaming freely at all times (Extremely unlikely/Unlikely/Neither likely or unlikely/Likely/Extremely likely)
- -
- Prevent my cat’s from roaming freely more often than I do currently (Extremely unlikely/Unlikely/Neither likely or unlikely/Likely/Extremely likely)
- -
- Install modified fencing or a cat escape-proof enclosure (Extremely unlikely/Unlikely/Neither likely or unlikely/Likely/Extremely likely)
References
- Animal Medicines Australia. Pets in Australia: A National Survey of Pets and People. 2022. Available online: https://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AMAU008-Pet-Ownership22-Report_v1.6_WEB.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2023).
- Woinarski, J.C.Z.; Braby, M.F.; Burbidge, A.A.; Coates, D.; Garnett, S.T.; Fensham, R.J.; Legge, S.M.; McKenzie, N.L.; Silcock, J.L.; Murphy, B.P. Reading the black book: The number, timing, distribution and causes of listed extinctions in Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 239, 108261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woinarski, J.C.Z.; Burbidge, A.A.; Harrison, P.L. Ongoing unraveling of a continental fauna: Decline and extinction of Australian mammals since European settlement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 4531–4540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Woolley, L.-A.; Geyle, H.M.; Murphy, B.P.; Legge, S.M.; Palmer, R.; Dickman, C.R.; Augusteyn, J.; Comer, S.; Doherty, T.S.; Eager, C.; et al. Introduced cats Felis catus eating a continental fauna: Inventory and traits of Australian mammal species killed. Mammal Rev. 2019, 49, 354–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickman, C.R.; Newsome, T.M. Individual hunting behaviour and prey specialisation in the house cat Felis catus: Implications for conservation and management. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 173, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doherty, T.S.; Davis, R.A.; van Etten, E.J.B.; Algar, D.; Collier, N.; Dickman, C.R.; Edwards, G.; Masters, P.; Palmer, R.; Robinson, S. A continental-scale analysis of feral cat diet in Australia. J. Biogeogr. 2015, 42, 964–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moseby, K.E.; Peacock, D.E.; Read, J.L. Catastrophic cat predation: A call for predator profiling in wildlife protection programs. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 191, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legge, S.; Woinarski, J.C.Z.; Dickman, C.R.; Murphy, B.P.; Woolley, L.-A.; Calver, M.C. We need to worry about Bella and Charlie: The impacts of pet cats on Australian wildlife. Wildl. Res. 2020, 47, 523–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loyd, K.-A.T.; Hernandez, S.M.; Carroll, J.P.; Abernathy, K.J.; Marshall, G.J. Quantifying free-roaming domestic cat predation using animal-borne video cameras. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 160, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roetman, P.; Tindle, H.; Litchfield, C. Management of Pet Cats: The Impact of the Cat Tracker Citizen Science Project in South Australia. Animals 2018, 8, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cecchetti, M.; Crowley, S.L.; Goodwin, C.E.; McDonald, R.A. Provision of high meat content food and object play reduce predation of wild animals by domestic cats Felis catus. Curr. Biol. 2021, 31, 1107–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ives, C.D.; Lentini, P.E.; Threlfall, C.G.; Ikin, K.; Shanahan, D.F.; Garrard, G.E.; Bekessy, S.A.; Fuller, R.A.; Mumaw, L.; Rayner, L.; et al. Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2016, 25, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, D.G.; Church, D.B.; McGreevy, P.D.; Thomson, P.C.; Brodbelt, D.C. Longevity and mortality of cats attending primary care veterinary practices in England. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2014, 17, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, J.L.; Gruffydd-Jones, T.J.; Murray, J.K. Risk factors for road traffic accidents in cats up to age 12 months that were registered between 2010 and 2013 with the UK pet cat cohort (‘Bristol Cats’). Vet. Rec. 2017, 180, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hardefeldt, L.; Hur, B.; Verspoor, K.; Baldwin, T.; Bailey, K.E.; Scarborough, R.; Richards, S.; Billman-Jacobe, H.; Browning, G.F.; Gilkerson, J. Use of cefovecin in dogs and cats attending first-opinion veterinary practices in Australia. Vet. Rec. 2020, 187, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westman, M.E.; Coggins, S.J.; van Dorsselaer, M.; Norris, J.M.; Squires, R.A.; Thompson, M.; Malik, R. Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) infection in domestic pet cats in Australia and New Zealand: Guidelines for diagnosis, pre-vention and management. Aust. Vet. J. 2022, 100, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RSPCA Australia. Identifying Best Practice Domestic Cat Management in Australia. 2018. Available online: https://kb.rspca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Identifying-Best-Practice-Domestic-Cat-Management-in-Australia-RSPCA-Research-Report-May-2018.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2023).
- Nou, T.; Legge, S.; Woinarski, J.; Dielenberg, J.; Garrard, G. The Management of Cats by Local Governments of Australia. In NESP Project 7.4: Cat Impacts and Management: Knowledge Exchange for Stakeholders; Threatened Species Recovery Hub: Brisbane, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- ACT Government. Cat Containment. 2023. Available online: https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/pets-and-wildlife/domestic-animals/cats/cat-containment (accessed on 7 May 2023).
- Chamberlain, S.A.E.; McLeod, L.J.; Hine, D.W. Audience segmentation of New Zealand cat owners: Under-standing the barriers and drivers of cat containment behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, in press.
- Crowley, S.L.; Cecchetti, M.; McDonald, R.A. Hunting behaviour in domestic cats: An exploratory study of risk and responsibility among cat owners. People Nat. 2019, 1, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foreman-Worsley, R.; Finka, L.R.; Ward, S.J.; Farnworth, M.J. Indoors or Outdoors? An International Exploration of Owner Demographics and Decision Making Associated with Lifestyle of Pet Cats. Animals 2021, 11, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, C.M.; Adams, N.A.; Bradley, J.S.; Bryant, K.A.; Davis, A.A.; Dickman, C.R.; Fujita, T.; Kobayashi, S.; Lepczyk, C.A.; McBride, E.A.; et al. Community attitudes and practices of urban residents regarding predation by pet cats on wildlife: An international comparison. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MacDonald, E.; Milfont, T.; Gavin, M. What drives cat-owner behaviour? First steps towards limiting domestic-cat impacts on native wildlife. Wildl. Res. 2015, 42, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLeod, L.J.; Hine, D.W.; Bengsen, A.B. Applying behavioural science for more effective cat management interventions. In Proceedings of the 2015 National Feral Cat Management Workshop Proceedings, Canberra, Australia, 21–22 April 2015; Tracey, J., Lane, C., Fleming, P., Dickman, C., Quinn, J., Buckmaster, T., McMahon, S., Eds.; Australian Government Department of the Environment and the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre: Canberra, Australia, 2015; pp. 132–138. [Google Scholar]
- McLeod, L.J.; Hine, D.W.; Bengsen, A.J. Born to roam? Surveying cat owners in Tasmania, Australia, to identify the drivers and barriers to cat containment. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 122, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, S.M.L.; Jajou, S.; Stellato, A.C.; Niel, L. Perspectives of Canadian and American Cat Owners on Provision of Uncontrolled Outdoor Access for Owned Domestic Cats [Original Research]. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 742245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toukhsati, S.R.; Young, E.; Bennett, P.C.; Coleman, G.J. Wandering cats: Attitudes and behaviors towards cat containment in Australia. Anthrozoos 2012, 25, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Eeden, L.M.; Hames, F.; Faulkner, R.; Geschke, A.; Squires, Z.E.; McLeod, E.M. Putting the cat before the wildlife: Exploring cat owners’ beliefs about cat containment as predictors of owner behavior. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2021, 3, e502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linklater, W.L.; Farnworth, M.J.; van Heezik, Y.; Stafford, K.J.; MacDonald, E.A. Prioritizing cat-owner behaviors for a campaign to reduce wildlife depredation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2019, 1, e29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenzie-Mohr, D. Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing, 3rd ed.; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- McLeod, L.J.; Hine, D.W.; Driver, A.B. Change the humans first: Principles for improving the management of free-roaming cats. Animals 2019, 9, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michie, S.; Atkins, L.; West, R. The Behaviour Change Wheel. A Guide to Designing Interventions; Silverback Publishing: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hine, D.W.; Sharp, T.; Driver, A.B. Using audience segmentation and targeted social marketing to improve land-holder management of invasive animals. In Community-Based Control of Invasive Species; Martin, P., Alter, T., Hine, D., Howard, T., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Clayton South, Australia, 2019; pp. 183–209. [Google Scholar]
- McLeod, L.J.; Hine, D.W.; Bengsen, A.J.; Driver, A.B. Assessing the impact of different persuasive messages on the intentions and behaviour of cat owners: A randomised control trial. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 146, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, G.M.; Artino, A.R., Jr. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-Type scales. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2013, 5, 541–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 1978, 6, 461–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramaswamy, V.; Desarbo, W.S.; Reistein, D.J.; Robinson, W.T. An empirical pooling approach for estimating marketing mix elasticities with PIMS data. Mark. Sci. 1993, 12, 103–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, Y.; Mendell, N.R.; Rubin, D.B. Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika 2001, 88, 767–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS). 2023. Available online: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/statistical-geography/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs (accessed on 7 May 2023).
- Kennedy, B.P.; Cumming, B.; Brown, W.Y. Global strategies for population management of domestic cats (Felis catus): A systematic review to inform best practice management for remote indigenous communities in Australia. Animals 2020, 10, 663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toribio, J.A.L.; Norris, J.M.; White, J.D.; Dhand, N.K.; Hamilton, S.A.; Malik, R. Demographics and husbandry of pet cats living in Sydney, Australia: Results of cross-sectional survey of pet ownership. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2009, 11, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, A.; Howell, T.J.; McLeod, E.M.; Bennett, P.C. Perceptions of responsible cat ownership behaviors among a convenience sample of Australians. Animals 2019, 9, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papies, E.K. Health goal priming as a situated intervention tool: How to benefit from nonconscious motivational routes to health behaviour. Health Psychol. Rev. 2016, 10, 408–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLeod, L.J.; Evans, D.; Jones, B.; Paterson, M.; Zito, S. Understanding the relationship between intention and cat containment behaviour: A case study of kitten and cat adopters from RSPCA Queensland. Animals 2020, 10, 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rand, J.; Ahmadabadi, Z.; Norris, J.; Franklin, M. Attitudes and Beliefs of a Sample of Australian Dog and Cat Owners towards Pet Confinement. Animals 2023, 13, 1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, S.L.; Rodan, I.; Carney, H.C.; Heath, S.; Rochlitz, I.; Shearburn, L.D.; Sundahl, E.; Westropp, J.L. AAFP and ISFM feline environmental needs guidelines. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2013, 15, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- French, D.P.; Olander, E.K.; Chisholm, A.; Mc Sharry, J. Which behaviour change techniques are most effective at increasing older adults’ self-efficacy and physical activity behaviour? A systematic review. Ann. Behav. Med. 2014, 48, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W. Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior. Eur. Psychol. 2014, 19, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, W.R.; Rollnick, S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Enlund, K.B.; Jennolf, E.; Pettersson, A. Small Animal Veterinarians’ Communication with Dog Owners From a Motivational Interviewing Perspective. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 772589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howell, T.J.; Mornement, K.; Bennett, P.C. Pet cat management practices among a representative sample of owners in Victoria, Australia. J. Vet. Behav. 2016, 11, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
COM Theme | Individual Items | Cronbach α |
---|---|---|
0.82 | ||
Capability to contain cat (3 items) | 1. Preventing cat roaming is too difficult (reversed score) | |
2. Confident can prevent cat roaming freely | ||
3. Confident can provide everything to ensure contained cat is happy | ||
0.83 | ||
4. A practice that my family and friends would agree with | ||
Social Opportunity for cat containment (5 items) | 5. A practice that veterinarians would agree with | |
6. A practice that my neighbours would agree with | ||
7. A practice that other cat owners would agree with | ||
8. Council should have law requiring cats to be kept on owners’ premises | ||
0.78 | ||
9. Should be prevented from roaming to keep them safe | ||
Motivation—cat welfare-framed (3 items) | 10. Should be prevented from roaming as good for their health and wellbeing | |
11. Believe cats do not like being contained (reverse score) | ||
0.85 | ||
Motivation—community-framed (4 items) | 12. Should be prevented from roaming to protect wildlife | |
13. Should be prevented from roaming, as can be nuisance to neighbours | ||
14. Would prevent from roaming if required by law | ||
15. Believe cats should be allowed free to roam (reverse score) |
Variables | 24 h Contain (n = 2896; 65%) | Night Curfew (n = 1088; 24%) | 24 h Roam (n = 492, 11%) | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |||
Age: | 45.2 (±14.0) a | 48.9 (±12.4) b | 44.8 (±13.5) a | ||
n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |||
Gender: | Female | 2406 (83%) | 897 (82%) | 377 (77%) | 3680 |
Male | 375 (13%) | 136 (13%) | 90 (18%) | 601 | |
Non-binary | 110 (4%) | 50 (5%) | 24 (5%) | 184 | |
Location: | Urban | 2085 (72%) | 753 (69%) | 335 (68%) | 3173 |
Regional | 811 (28%) | 335 (31%) | 157 (32%) | 1235 | |
Dwelling: | Own | 2109 (73%) | 891 (83%) | 398 (82%) | 3398 |
Rent | 768 (27%) | 187 (17%) | 89 (18%) | 1044 | |
Type of dwelling: | Free-standing house | 2000 (69%) | 961 (88%) | 417 (85%) | 3378 |
Apartment/other | 888 (31%) | 127 (12%) | 73 (15%) | 1088 | |
Outdoor space: | Access | 2361 (82%) | 956 (88%) | 426 (87%) | 3743 |
No access | 527 (18%) | 132 (12%) | 64 (13%) | 723 | |
Cats per household: | 1 cat | 1451 (51%) | 590 (55%) | 282 (58%) | 2323 |
2 cats | 967 (34%) | 342 (32%) | 141 (29%) | 1450 | |
3 cats | 251 (9%) | 100 (9%) | 36 (7%) | 387 | |
4 cats | 92 (3%) | 25 (2%) | 11 (2%) | 128 | |
5 cats or more | 112 (4%) | 20 (2%) | 18 (4%) | 150 |
24 h Contain | Night Curfew | 24 h Roam | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COM themes | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | F | p | η2 |
Capability | 4.42 (±0.71) a | 2.87 (±0.92) b | 2.57 (±0.93) c | 2230.83 | <0.001 | 0.50 |
Social opportunity | 3.68 (±0.74) a | 2.72 (±0.81) b | 2.59 (±0.80) c | 887.93 | <0.001 | 0.28 |
Cat welfare motivation | 3.84 (±0.81) a | 2.64 (±0.80) b | 2.45 (±0.82) c | 1246.06 | <0.001 | 0.36 |
Community motivation | 4.22 (±0.78) a | 3.19 (±0.90) b | 2.84 (±0.99) c | 981.56 | <0.001 | 0.31 |
95% CL | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictors | B | LB | UB | sr2 | r |
Capability | −0.36 | −0.38 | −0.33 | 0.12 | −0.65 ** |
Social opportunity | 0.01 | −0.03 | 0.04 | 0.00 | −0.48 ** |
Cat welfare motivation | −0.10 | −0.13 | −0.07 | 0.01 | −0.55 ** |
Community motivation | −0.11 | −0.14 | −0.08 | 0.01 | −0.52 ** |
Cat owner age | 0.00 | −0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 * |
Cat owner gender | 0.04 | −0.01 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.05 ** |
Location | −0.01 | −0.05 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
Type of dwelling | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.17 ** |
Access to outdoor space | 0.04 | −0.01 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.06 ** |
Home ownership | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.10 ** |
Number of cats owned | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | −0.03 |
Profile Solution | BIC | Entropy | LMR |
---|---|---|---|
2 | 14,439.96 | 0.81 | p < 0.001 |
3 | 13,905.08 | 0.79 | p < 0.001 |
4 | 13,702.26 | 0.78 | p = 0.03 |
5 | 13,610.89 | 0.77 | p < 0.001 |
6 | 13,595.97 | 0.81 | p = 0.04 |
7 | 13,606.91 | 0.76 | p = 0.33 |
Profile 1 (n = 137) | Profile 2 (n = 404) | Profile 3 (n = 475) | Profile 4 (n = 21) | Profile 5 (n = 443) | Profile 6 (n = 100) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Freedom Defender | Tolerant Guardian | Laissez-Faire Landlord | Conscientious Caretaker | Concerned Protector | ||
Current behaviour | Minimal containment | Minimal containment | Mixture | Mixture | Mostly night curfew | Mostly night curfew |
Intentions | No plans to change | No plans to change | No plans to change | Thinking about it more | Thinking about it more | Most likely to change |
Average age (years) | Youngest (44.2) | Younger (44.8) | In between (47.1) | In between (49.0) | Older (50.6) | Oldest (51.4) |
Location | High urban (75%) | High urban (73%) | Urban (71%) | Urban (67%) | Lowest urban (62%) | Urban (64%) |
Gender | Lowest female (72%) | Female (79%) | Female (81%) | Female (76%) | Female (84%) | Highest female (85%) |
COM themes | Disagreed most strongly with all COM themes. Members were the least capable of cat containment, did not have the social opportunity, and were not motivated by either cat welfare benefits or community benefits, i.e., believed preventing their cats from roaming would be difficult, perceived roaming as beneficial for cat wellbeing and not a major risk to their safety. | Also disagreed with all COM themes but not to the same degree as Profile 1. Were slightly more capable of containing their cats than Profile 1, did not have the social opportunity, believed cats should be able to roam and were also less concerned about their safety. | No strong opinions about any of the COM themes (they tended not to agree or disagree with any of the drivers). | More likely to be motivated to fully contain their cats for community reasons, i.e., they agreed that cats should not be free to roam and should be prevented from roaming to protect wildlife and prevent nuisance to neighbours. Also demonstrated strong social opportunity to contain their cats, but found containment difficult, with low confidence and skills to contain their cat. | Agreed with community motivation theme, and weak agreement with the remaining COM themes, i.e., motivated by the benefits to the community, both through protecting wildlife and through reducing nuisance for neighbours. | Agreed more strongly with all COM themes, in particular community motivation, i.e., felt capable and had social opportunity to contain cats, were motivated by the benefits to the cats’ welfare and more strongly motivated by the benefits to the community, both through protecting wildlife and through reducing nuisance for neighbours. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ma, G.C.; McLeod, L.J. Understanding the Factors Influencing Cat Containment: Identifying Opportunities for Behaviour Change. Animals 2023, 13, 1630. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101630
Ma GC, McLeod LJ. Understanding the Factors Influencing Cat Containment: Identifying Opportunities for Behaviour Change. Animals. 2023; 13(10):1630. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101630
Chicago/Turabian StyleMa, Gemma C., and Lynette J. McLeod. 2023. "Understanding the Factors Influencing Cat Containment: Identifying Opportunities for Behaviour Change" Animals 13, no. 10: 1630. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101630