Three Things to Know
Despite research confirming limited access to human welfare necessities in distressed areas, the distribution of pet resources remained unexamined. This study investigated “animal welfare deserts” in urban centers, using Detroit as a case study.
The findings revealed that the presence of pet stores and veterinary clinics strongly correlates with higher rents and “creative class” presence, indicating that more prosperous areas have better access to pet necessities. This disparity poses a significant challenge for lower-income residents, potentially impacting animal welfare.
To address this, researchers propose leveraging economic incentives like below-market rents and start-up loans for small businesses. Additionally, nonprofits should prioritize serving these underserved areas, bridging the gap left by private enterprises to foster animal welfare equity.
For Dog Welfare Practitioners
To better serve their communities and better keep people and pets together, dog welfare advocates — especially shelters and humane societies — must first analyze which geographic areas require greater support. This analysis should encompass not only identifying “animal welfare deserts” but also pinpointing concentrations of lost pets, indicating critical reunification needs.
By understanding these underserved pockets, advocates can then deploy mobile resources, such as veterinary clinics, and partner with local organizations to provide essential services like pet food banks and dog care, directly within those communities.
The Full Picture
Access to veterinary care and pet support services (e.g., grooming, pet food, training) is increasingly recognized as a major barrier to animal welfare, especially in economically distressed urban areas. Just as underserved communities often lack access to human necessities like healthcare and healthy food, these areas may also lack pet-related services, creating “animal welfare deserts.” The growing urban pet population, particularly among low-income households, faces significant geographic and financial barriers to care, which can negatively impact both human and animal health.
Using Detroit as a case study, this research, titled “Animal welfare deserts: human and nonhuman animal inequities”, examines whether pet resource distribution aligns with indicators of higher economic health, greater presence of the “creative class” (young, educated professionals), or higher need. The research aims to empirically inform more equitable urban planning for human and animal well-being.
Study Methods
This study examines the distribution of access to pet support services — specifically veterinary clinics and pet stores — in the City of Detroit, a city characterized by economic distress, high numbers of stray dogs, animal cruelty, and frequent dog bites. Detroit’s challenging context — marked by housing vacancy, poverty, limited city resources, and a high number of free-roaming dogs — has made it a critical case for understanding “animal welfare deserts.”
Data on the locations of 11 pet stores and 12 veterinary offices in 2020 were compiled using ReferenceUSA and Google Maps, with Detroit’s 27 zip codes serving as the unit of analysis. Additional data from the 2021 American Community Survey were used to assess demographic and socioeconomic variables, while police records from 2007–2015 provided information on 478 dog bites and 302 cases of animal cruelty to indicate areas of need. These variables were consolidated into three indexes through factor analysis: residential economic health, creative class presence (to assess gentrification), and animal support need (bites and cruelty).
Study Results
The findings showed that pet support services are unevenly distributed across the city. Most pet stores are clustered in the more affluent downtown/midtown areas, leaving much of Detroit underserved. In contrast, veterinary clinics are more evenly spread and found in some middle- and lower-income neighborhoods.
Further analysis confirmed that creative class presence and higher rents are the strongest predictors of pet store and veterinary clinic presence, explaining up to 50% of the variation across zip codes. In short, pet resources in Detroit are more strongly aligned with affluence and gentrification than with areas of greatest need, such as those with high dog bite and animal cruelty rates. This finding underscores how market forces tend to exacerbate inequality, as pet resources follow patterns similar to other urban amenities—favoring higher-income residents.
To address these inequities, the authors propose a mix of market, nonprofit, and government-led solutions. On the economic front, business incubators, subsidies, and loan programs could help attract pet-related businesses to underserved neighborhoods. Nonprofit organizations already play a major role in Detroit and nationwide by providing low-cost veterinary care, supplies, and education. The One Health approach, which integrates human and animal welfare services, is another promising strategy—especially when services are co-located and designed with community input. These integrated, community-based solutions could improve access and outcomes for both pets and their guardians in underserved areas.
Conclusion
This study found that pet resources in Detroit are unequally distributed, favoring wealthier, gentrifying areas while bypassing economically distressed neighborhoods. While economic conditions and the presence of creative-class residents correlated with more pet resources, areas with high need — measured by dog bites and animal cruelty — did not receive more services. This mismatch highlights the existence of animal welfare deserts, which present a significant equity issue. Limited access to pet care can endanger animal welfare, increase guardian stress, and contribute to shelter relinquishment. Addressing this disparity is crucial to improving both human and animal well-being, reinforcing the need for integrated One Health approaches in urban planning and social services.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
–
Year of Publication:
2023
External Link:
Reese L and Li X (2023) Animal welfare deserts: human and nonhuman animal inequities. Front. Vet. Sci. 10:1189211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1189211