Show simple record

dc.contributor.authorHall, Catherine M.
dc.contributor.authorAdams, Nigel
dc.contributor.authorBradley, J. Stuart
dc.contributor.authorBryant, Kate A.
dc.contributor.authorDavis, Alisa A.
dc.contributor.authorDickman, Christopher R.
dc.contributor.authorFujita, Tsumugi
dc.contributor.authorKobayashi, Shinichi
dc.contributor.authorLepczyk, Christopher A.
dc.contributor.authorMcBride, E. Anne
dc.contributor.authorPollock, Kenneth H.
dc.contributor.authorStyles, Irene M.
dc.contributor.authorvan Heezik, Yolanda
dc.contributor.authorWang, Ferian
dc.contributor.authorCalver, Michael C.
dc.description.abstractInternational differences in practices and attitudes regarding pet cats' interactions with wild-life were assessed by surveying citizens from at least two cities in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the USA, China and Japan. Predictions tested were: (i) cat owners would agree less than non-cat owners that cats might threaten wildlife, (ii) cat owners value wildlife less than non-cat owners, (iii) cat owners are less accepting of cat legislation/restrictions than non-owners, and (iv) respondents from regions with high endemic biodiversity (Australia, New Zealand, China and the USA state of Hawaii) would be most concerned about pet cats threatening wildlife. Everywhere non-owners were more likely than owners to agree that pet cats killing wildlife were a problem in cities, towns and rural areas. Agreement amongst non-owners was highest in Australia (95%) and New Zealand (78%) and lowest in the UK (38%). Irrespective of ownership, over 85% of respondents from all countries except China (65%) valued wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas. Non-owners advocated cat legislation more strongly than owners except in Japan. Australian non-owners were the most supportive (88%), followed by Chinese non-owners (80%) and Japanese owners (79.5%). The UK was least supportive (non-owners 43%, owners 25%). Many Australian (62%), New Zealand (51%) and Chinese owners (42%) agreed that pet cats killing wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas was a problem, while Hawaiian owners were similar to the mainland USA (20%). Thus high endemic biodiversity might contribute to attitudes in some, but not all, countries. Husbandry practices varied internationally, with predation highest where fewer cats were confined. Although the risk of wildlife population declines caused by pet cats justifies precautionary action, campaigns based on wildlife protection are unlikely to succeed outside Australia or New Zealand. Restrictions on roaming protect wildlife and benefit cat welfare, so welfare is a better rationale.en_NZ
dc.publisherPLOS ONE (Public Library of Science)en_NZ
dc.rightsCopyright: © 2016 Hall et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.en_NZ
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 New Zealand*
dc.subjectNew Zealanden_NZ
dc.subjectUnited Kingdomen_NZ
dc.subjectcats (Felis catus)en_NZ
dc.subjectwildlife protectionen_NZ
dc.subjectnon-cat ownersen_NZ
dc.titleCommunity attitudes and practices of urban residents regarding predation by pet cats on wildlife : an international comparisonen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
dc.subject.marsden050211 Wildlife and Habitat Managementen_NZ
dc.subject.marsden070205 Animal Protection (Pests and Pathogens)en_NZ
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationHall, C. M., Adams, N. J., Bradley, J. S., Bryant, K. A., Davis, A. A., Dickman, C. R., Fujita, T., Kobayashi, S., Lepczyk, C. A., McBride, E. A., Pollock, K. H., Styles, I. M., van Heezik, Y., Wang, F., & Calver, M. C. (2016). Community attitudes and practices of urban residents regarding predation by pet cats on wildlife: an international comparison. PLOS ONE, 11(4), pp.e0151962. doi:doi:10.137/journalpone.0151962en_NZ
unitec.institutionMurdoch University (Murdoch, Western Australia)en_NZ
unitec.institutionUnitec Institute of Technologyen_NZ
unitec.institutionUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa (Manoa, Hawaii, U.S.A.)en_NZ
unitec.institutionUniversity of Sydney (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)en_NZ
unitec.institutionNihon University (Fujisawa, Japan)en_NZ
unitec.institutionAuburn University (Auburn, Alabama, U.S.A.)en_NZ
unitec.institutionUniversity of Southampton (Southampton, UK)en_NZ
unitec.institutionNorth Carolina State University (Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.)en_NZ
unitec.institutionUniversity of Western Australia (Perth, Western Australia)en_NZ
unitec.institutionUniversity of Otago (Dunedin, New Zealand)en_NZ
unitec.publication.titlePLOS ONEen_NZ
dc.contributor.affiliationUnitec Institute of Technologyen_NZ
unitec.institution.studyareaNatural Sciences

Files in this item


This item appears in

Show simple record

 Unitec Institute of Technology, Private Bag 92025, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142