Three Things to Know
Dog population management (DPM) systems aim to humanely control free-roaming dog populations, yet their socio-economic impact often remains unclear. To address this gap, the authors of this paper conducted a comprehensive scoping review to identify past studies that have discussed this topic.
The review found only 14 papers published between 2006 and 2022 that both discussed DPM and provided socio-economic assessments. Most of these studies focused on rabies control, with DPM interventions forming only a component of the broader program.
Overall, this study revealed a significant lack of research assessing the socio-economic impact of DPM systems. Existing assessments often suffer from inconsistent data or terminology, cover an inadequate scope, and exhibit clear methodological weaknesses.
For Dog Welfare Practitioners
While governments and cities should always choose the most humane way of managing dog populations, the approaches taken vary, with culling used at times, especially in emergency situations. This study reveals a clear challenge: it’s difficult to persuade city officials to prioritize dog population management as an agenda item, or that Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release (CNVR) is the most effective methodology, when socio-economic assessments are missing. Dog welfare advocates working across different countries should consider collaborating with local academia and international organizations like ICAM to help improve data gathering and impact assessment.
The Full Picture
Dog Population Management (DPM) systems aim to humanely control free-roaming dog populations to improve public health, animal welfare, and human-dog coexistence. This scoping review, titled “Socio-economic assessment of dog population management systems,” identifies academic studies that have explored the socio-economic aspects of DPMs.
Study Methods
The researchers conducted a comprehensive search across major academic databases and gray literature sources to identify studies discussing the socio-economic impact of DPM services.
They selected studies that considered DPM interventions, such as sterilization, sheltering, as well as culling. In addition, the studies must demonstrate the economics (costs, benefits, or effectiveness in monetary or non-monetary terms) of these DPM services or culling.
Study Results
Out of 15,476 initial references, only 14 studies met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review, spanning 2006 to 2022 and covering diverse regions including Europe, Asia, South America, and North America. These studies focused on a range of dog populations — owned, stray, free-roaming, shelter, and community dogs — reflecting varying terminology and management practices.
Research on Dog Population Management (DPM) faces several significant hurdles that limit its effectiveness and comparability. These challenges fall into three main categories:
Inconsistent Data
Existing data often proves inconsistent or limited, particularly regarding dog populations, disease incidence, intervention costs, and the overall impact of DPM programs. This frequently necessitates reliance on modeling assumptions. Furthermore, the absence of standardized frameworks and terminology (e.g., distinguishing between “stray,” “free-roaming,” and “block dogs”) makes it difficult to compare findings across different studies.
Inadequate Scope
Most studies primarily focus on rabies control, with DPM acting as a secondary component, rather than independently assessing DPM initiatives. There’s also limited evaluation of widely used services such as sheltering and adoption, with an overemphasis on sterilization and vaccination. Critically, many studies lack a comprehensive economic analysis, even when quantitative intervention data is available. The evaluation of non-monetary benefits — like improved community safety, enhanced dog welfare, or stronger human-animal relationships — is also insufficient.
Methodological Weaknesses
Studies often omit indirect costs, such as training and capital investments. There’s also significant variation in reported intervention costs across different regions, especially for rabies vaccination programs. Few studies consistently account for discount rates or apply Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), which limits the long-term utility and comparability of their findings.
Recommendations
To address these issues, the review recommends:
- Developing standardized tools and frameworks for socio-economic assessment.
- Prioritizing data collection on DPM costs, benefits, and impacts.
- Integrating social, ethical, and health dimensions into economic evaluations.
- Applying sensitivity analysis and discounting for more robust long-term planning.
Conclusion
The review underscores the urgent need for a standardized and holistic approach to evaluate DPM systems. While the tools and methods for economic analysis are available, their use is limited by poor data availability and inconsistent terminology. Strengthening data collection and integrating social and economic parameters will enable more effective, sustainable, and humane DPM strategies. Ultimately, this will support evidence-based policymaking and better allocation of resources to improve both human and animal well-being.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
–
Year of Publication:
2025
External Link:
Ghimire R, Mohanty P, Hiby E, Larkins A, Dürr S and Hartnack S (2025) Socio-economic assessment of dog population management systems: a scoping review. Front. Vet. Sci. 12:1519913. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1519913