Table 6.
Demographic and behavioural characteristics of the six cat owner profiles who currently allow their cats to roam away from their property, including how these profiles relate to segments identified by Crowley et al. [21]. NB while Profile 4 differed from Profile 3 in COM agreement scores and demographic variables; we consider both profiles correspond sufficiently with the description of the Laissez-faire Landlord of Crowley et al. [21] to warrant similar approaches to behaviour change interventions.
| 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. |