Dogs have been an integral component of human communities and played diverse roles, often serving as companions or working animals, including offering household or livestock protection (1, 2). However, cultural attitudes toward dogs vary; while they are treated as beloved family members in some communities, in others, they may face neglect, hunting, or culling (3, 4). There is a concern as dogs can act as a reservoir and vector of various zoonotic diseases such as rabies, echinococcosis, and leishmaniasis, among others (5–8). Dog-mediated rabies as a public health burden is estimated to cause about 59,000 human deaths per year worldwide, with transmission primarily through bites of free-roaming dogs, accounting for over 95% of infections (5). Beyond the risk of transmission of zoonotic diseases, free-roaming dogs also pose public health or safety issues by causing dog bites, road accidents, chasing people, or producing fecal and noise pollution. In addition, free-roaming dogs can affect wildlife, livestock, and other animals and birds by predation, competition for resources or disease transmission, such as canine distemper or neosporosis (6, 9–11).

Dog population management (DPM) is intended to reduce the number of unwanted dogs, improve the health and welfare of dog populations, associated problems, and foster peaceful coexistence with dogs, humans and the environment (12–14). Humane DPM focuses on maximizing advantages for both dogs and human communities while avoiding the practice of dog killing (14). A DPM system is a comprehensive programme of DPM services (also called ‘measures’). These include dog sterilization (spaying or neutering) campaigns, identification and registration of dogs, vaccinations and parasite control, dog rehoming and adoption, promotion of responsible ownership, and control of commercial breeding and sale among other initiatives (15). The primary objectives of a DPM system are to reduce the free-roaming dog population, minimize risks to public health and safety, and reduce nuisance caused by free-roaming dogs. Additionally, DPM systems seek to improve the health and welfare of humans and dogs by fostering human-animal interactions, enhancing mental well-being for dog owners, and promoting better care for dogs through vaccination, sterilization, or reduced abandonment (12). DPM systems, thus, manage the dog population and consequently support other initiatives such as rabies control by increasing and sustaining vaccination coverage and improving access of the population to surveillance as well as the management of other zoonoses and diseases (12, 16). Dog population management has evolved over time. While culling, particularly through poisoning, shooting, or beating has been deemed unethical, it continues to be implemented in some regions as part of policies to manage free-roaming dog populations (17). However, it does not include the humane termination of animal’s life to alleviate suffering and protect its welfare (18). In contrast, more recent strategies emphasize humane approaches, such as sterilization and vaccination to manage dog populations humanely and effectively (16, 19).

DPM has a social dynamic, influenced by various human behaviors, socio-economic conditions, and cultural norms, which differ across areas. These factors contribute to differences in the implementation of DPM systems, as unique dog population dynamics and ownership practices shape how dogs, often referred to as ‘community dogs’ are managed within local communities (14, 20). Assessing socio-economic conditions is crucial for tailoring DPM service provision to increase accessibility (14, 15), particularly in areas where social determinants such as education, culture, income and living conditions may limit the resources for effective dog management (9, 21). For example, countries like India and Mexico face challenges due to their large free-roaming dog populations (22, 23) and limited resources, which makes basic control measures difficult to implement. In contrast, European countries like Italy have more structured and regulated DPM systems that include comprehensive policies, mandatory dog registration, sterilization and vaccination (24). Technological advancements also shape modern DPM practices, introducing innovations like microchipping and new sterilization techniques (9, 25, 26). Furthermore, the human-animal bond influences DPM strategies, as strong relationships between humans and dogs encourage community engagement, leading to more sustainable and effective DPM systems, emphasizing the need for community involvement and stakeholder engagement in DPM initiatives.

Economic analysis supports the reality of making decisions related to resource allocation in the context of scarce resources. They evaluate the immediate and long-term costs and benefits of interventions, as well as their outcomes over time, using various scenarios and economic metrics to assess the efficiency and impact of each DPM service (27). A range of economic assessment methods, based on economic theories, are available, with Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) being the most common to obtain various economic metrics (Table 1) (28). These economic analyses provide a framework for decision-making by offering a comparative overview of the different methods and hence to identify the most economical programs to assist in the allocation of resources and development of government DPM policy. Additionally, non-monetary measures, such as the number of animals sterilized or more complex health measures including disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and adjusted DALYs (zDALYs) for zoonotic diseases, are also used to evaluate the impact of diseases or health interventions on human and animal populations (29).

The socio-economics of DPM systems, though important, is rarely evaluated, and there is limited published evidence available. The absence of this information on the socio-economic aspects of different DPM services and their efficacy restricts assessments. Therefore, it is crucial to have an overview of what past efforts do exist, to understand the economics of the DPM system as far as they are currently understood. This scoping review is conducted to synthesize evidence that assesses the socio-economic considerations in the DPM systems.

The aim of this scoping review is to identify, map, and summarize the published methods and parameters on the socio-economic aspects of DPM systems. The primary outcome is to determine available evidence, identify the current gaps, and establish the need for enabling future socio-economic assessment. Furthermore, the outputs based on the scoping review will contribute to determine the types of data needed and methodologies best suited for future socio-economic assessments to develop recommendations for important policy decisions and community-based initiatives for effective DPM.

This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of studies that assess the socio-economic aspects of DPM systems. We reviewed the types of DPM services used, the methodologies employed, the populations studied, and the geographical contexts. Additionally, the review summarizes the parameters of DPM and economic methods applied along with associated metrics and identifies the gaps and challenges in the existing literature.

Despite the large number of titles and abstracts of studies (7,259) and gray literature screened, only 14 met our inclusion criteria, indicating the limitation of economic data available in DPM systems. Among them, most focused on rabies control with DPM interventions as a part of the program. This underscores the public health implications of DPM while highlighting a gap in independently addressing DPM and its economic assessment from rabies.

We identified only limited studies that assess sheltering (21%) or adoption (29%), despite their widespread use in DPM. This may partly be due to studies focusing on only one of the services delivered by an organization, e.g., sterilization and vaccination (37). However, it is important to note that the economic analysis of DPM is challenging due to a lack of a comprehensive framework that defines the role of DPM in society. A system modeling approach could significantly enhance the understanding by providing a more holistic view of DPM’s contributions to One Health. This approach could help guide organizations in identifying and collecting relevant data, enabling a clearer and more comprehensive evaluation of the societal, public health and animal welfare benefits while addressing the existing gaps in DPM impact measurement.

Additionally, the studies that included the economic aspects of DPM were published between 2006 and 2022, indicating that assessing the economic viability of DPM is a relatively new approach that is gaining recognition as relevant to understanding the importance and complexities of DPM. This reflects the increasing understanding that DPM requires a multifaceted approach including an appreciation of animal welfare, public health, and economic feasibility.

In our review, there was an inclusion of varied terminologies to describe dog populations. It is evident that these categorizations and descriptions are not consistently standardized across studies which may often lead to ambiguity. Terms such as ‘stray,’ ‘free roaming,’ ‘community owned,’ ‘owned,’ and ‘restricted’ are frequently used. While there are some definitions provided by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) (12), there are other terms such as ‘block dogs’ (36) that can still complicate the use of terminology. “Block dogs” are free-roaming dogs that reside in specific urban “blocks” within a city, similar to village dogs but adapted to urban settings. These dogs are collected, microchipped, sterilized, and vaccinated by Local Veterinary Services before being returned to their original localities, where they are cared for and managed by the community and local municipalities (36). Additionally, insights from research on rabies in India highlight similar challenges where terms like “stray,” “street” and “free-living” dog are used to reflect different societal perspectives on the life of dogs in communities (48). Here, they argue that the term “stray” reflects a Western view of dogs as “out of place” when not owned, contrasting with Indian perspectives that often recognize street dogs as legitimate cohabitants of public spaces. This lack of uniformity and inconsistency illustrates the difficulty in defining and categorizing dog populations, given their varied and complex interactions with humans and the socio-geographical context. This inconsistency complicates the comparison and analysis of DPM systems across different regional or cultural contexts.

Although culling has been historically used as a DPM intervention, the approach now has shifted to various alternative or more humane methods. Dog killing or culling has been prohibited by law in countries like Italy, Brazil or Bhutan, whilst allowing for euthanasia to avoid animal suffering (36, 43, 45). This change in the DPM approach was reported in several studies; in Colombo city, Sri Lanka, where culling with gas inhalation was replaced by sterilization and community education (42), in Bali, Indonesia, where culling with strychnine was replaced by mass rabies vaccination (40) and in Texas, USA mobile sterilization clinics were introduced to reduce relinquishment to shelters and subsequent euthanasia (46). Despite these positive advances, dog culling or removal is still practiced in some regions across Asia and Africa such as the Philippines (41), India (49), or Uganda (50) emphasizing the need for greater operational engagement and robust efforts to stop culling practices. Culling is short-lived, any population that experiences rapid reduction is swiftly restored due to increased births and immigration (12, 25). It not only fails to provide a long-term solution but also raises significant ethical concerns regarding animal welfare. In contrast, sterilization offers a more effective approach as it limits population rebound by preventing birth, so contributes to maintaining reduced population sizes for a longer time. Vaccination and community education also present more sustainable and humane alternatives. These interventions ensure a healthy managed dog population and lower disease transmission, which lowers the economic burden associated with human vaccination and treatment. They could also improve societal well-being by reducing the zoonotic risks (47), or fostering safer communities, potentially benefitting sectors like tourism. Some studies included in this review demonstrated how sterilization combined with either vaccination or responsible ownership was a cost-effective long-term strategy (25, 37, 39, 46), while culling was identified as a costly measure (39). Additionally, free DPM services, such as sterilization, may create dependency within communities and undermine investment in responsible dog ownership practices. Implementing cost-recovery approaches for sterilization, vaccination, mandatory identification and registration, or sheltering could provide a source of income ensuring the sustainability of DPM (15, 44).

The review highlights a range of intervention, impact, and monetary parameters (the costs and benefits) to evaluate the economics of DPM systems, demonstrating the complexity and varied scope of the DPM systems and services. This emphasizes an opportunity to standardize approaches to allow for comparison among studies. Despite this wide range of parameters, we could see similarities in the methods and metrics in the study. The impacts and benefits varied accordingly, with some studies focusing on the societal economic impact (37, 42, 43) while others on the direct economic revenue from the implementation of DPM systems with sheltering dogs (13). However, we observed a lack of focus on the social and non-monetary values associated with dog’s health. In our study, we applied a broad search strategy to avoid missing relevant publications, without restricting to the term “socio-economic,” as its inclusion significantly reduced the initial search results. Despite this, we found only one study (39) that mentioned the loss of a dog’s value due to culling, four studies addressed improved dog welfare (25, 36, 40, 42), and three addressed increased community acceptance of dog populations (40, 42, 47). A study from Noguera et al. (51), discusses this gap in recognizing non-monetary values assigned to animals, particularly in relation to companion animals like dogs (51). There is a need for greater clarity on how we value dogs and their health as well as their broad connections to humans and the environment. Social impacts include the broader range of impacts such as public health, policy and regulations, and overall community well-being reflected by behavioral changes, safety and community perceptions of dogs, and an increase in dog welfare (12, 52). Integrating social aspects in the economics of DPM systems and linking the parameters to human factors might deliver a better understanding of the dog’s value and the overall effectiveness of the DPM systems. Though it might be challenging to quantify these impacts in monetary terms, the overall socio-economic framework will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the DPM system. In a long-term system, the costs and outcomes of the service may occur at different times and build up over the years (53).

Discounting accounts for the changing value of monetary costs and benefits over time, making it particularly relevant for studies conducted over a long period of time (e.g., over multiple years). Although almost all papers consider multiple years in the review, only five accounted for discounted rates, which is a notable gap. The current recommendation is to apply a range of discount rates, including scenarios without discounting, to assess whether the results are influenced by the chosen discounting rate (54, 55). There is also the consideration of how non-monetary health measures such as DALYs should be discounted (56). Heterogeneity in DALY and the burden of disease methods have also hampered the utility and ability of estimates (57). We encourage analysts to consider the recently published reporting guidelines on DALYs to ensure transparency and future utility (58). This approach enhances a more accurate economic evaluation of the DPM services and ensures consistency in decision-making, regardless of the methodological assumptions made about the value of future benefits and costs. Additionally, in the review, economic analysis is often combined with sensitivity analysis to account for uncertainties in the methodologies applied, ensuring that economic outcomes such as CER remain valid under different scenarios or input fluctuations. This strengthens the reliability of economic analysis, allowing for informed decision-making regarding resource allocation in DPM systems.

In this study, the gaps identified were mostly related to data availability and accessibility. In regards to this, data on dog population size or density is crucial in supporting DPM interventions, such as determining the number of sterilizations, vaccinations or adoptions that need to be achieved in a particular region or area (44). For example, without taking in account the baseline dog population size or density in an area, merely the number of sterilizations or vaccinations cannot be used to determine the coverage or success of a DPM service (20). The reliability and credibility of the projected outcomes may be undermined without the integration of objective data (40). This data limitation further poses challenges to estimate the resources required for DPM systems and quantify the impact of DPM services and their relative cost-effectiveness (25). Additionally, the non-monetary benefits and long-term costs and benefits associated with DPM systems were difficult to quantify, making it challenging to address future uncertainties (13). High costs for DPM services, including sterilization and vaccination campaigns, pose difficulties (41, 45, 46), and these challenges also pertain to the sustainability of long-term DPM interventions (38, 39, 44).

During the review process, we came across papers which, despite the presence of quantitative parameters of the DPM systems, lacked data on economic aspects. This makes it challenging to assess the long-term sustainability and financial viability of DPM services. An example is from a study in Greater Bangkok, Thailand to assess the impact of free-roaming dog population (2). This study assessed the intervention parameters such as dogs sterilized, dog density and dog ownership along with the impact on reduction in rabies transmission, increased care and changed perception toward dogs. Similarly, a study for evaluating DPM interventions and their impact in Australia provides information on dog sterilization, microchipping, education on the benefits of DPM and measures impact with vaccination coverage, increase of microchipping in the community, decreased euthanasia, decreased dog attacks, improved community attitudes toward dogs among others (1). Inclusion of additional economic data would have provided a more comprehensive evaluation in these cases. Generally, without economic data, the development of evidence-based policies for the most cost-effective approaches to DPM systems could be hindered, making it challenging to make informed decisions for its implementation. Thus, further research needs prioritizing data gathering and accessibility by organizations or authorities involved in DPM and attributing costs and benefits of the impacts. Developing tools to assist organizations in conducting economic analysis and standardized reporting would benefit DPM evaluation. The tools would ensure consistent methodologies for data collection and economic assessment across different programs. This ensures efficiency, sustainability, and proper resource allocation for implementing DPM services. This effort will ultimately benefit policymakers by facilitating informed decision-making.

Our scoping review has certain limitations that need to be acknowledged. Although we conducted a broad literature with the help of a professional librarian, we may have missed some studies which used different DPM terminologies. Additionally, while we did not apply language restrictions and screened abstracts in other languages (e.g., French and Spanish), it is crucial to note that relevant papers may have been missed due to the search strategy being in English. There was heterogeneity in terminology and the level of context descriptions, we simplified the contexts and terminologies to allow us to group and summarize studies but could have misinterpreted the authors’ meanings.

Our scoping review identified 14 studies out of more than 7,200 papers that provide insights into the socio-economic assessment of DPM systems, highlighting the costs and benefits of interventions. DPM services may vary with the scope of the system, and this will subsequently affect the intervention, impact and economic parameters, and the methodologies utilized to analyze these parameters. While the economic methods for DPM assessment are generally accessible and straightforward, making them accessible for practical implementation, their application is frequently constrained by the lack of standardized, reliable, and comprehensive data. These limitations arise from insufficient data collection efforts, a lack of standardized methodologies across regions and contexts, and a lack of awareness about the potential value of analyzing economic data. Prioritizing data collection of DPM costs and benefits can lead to future robust economic analysis of the DPM systems. Though challenging to quantify in monetary terms, integrating social aspects in the economics of DPM systems and linking parameters to human factors could enhance the understanding of dogs’ value and overall effectiveness. To achieve this, a standardized framework for data collection and socio-economic assessment would be instrumental in measuring the impact of these DPM systems. This will support effective resource allocation and evidence-based policy making for implementing the most cost-effective and sustainable DPM systems.