IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i10p1729-d231691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Companion Animal Ownership and Human Well-Being in a Metropolis—The Case of Hong Kong

Author

Listed:
  • Paul W.C. Wong

    (Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China)

  • Rose W.M. Yu

    (Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China)

  • Joe T.K. Ngai

    (Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China)

Abstract

Global urbanization has given cause for a re-assessment of the nature and importance of the relationship between humans and domesticated animals. In densely-populated urban societies, where loneliness and alienation can be prevalent, the use of animals as human companions has taken on heightened importance. Hong Kong is the world’s most urbanised political entity, and thus provides an ideal context for the exploration of the role of animals in the provision of companionship for human beings in cities. A web-based survey with descriptive analyses, regression, and ANOVA was conducted. Six-hundred-and-forty-seven companion animal owners and 312 non-owners completed the survey that examined their socio-demographic information, companion animal ownership status, and physical-psychosocial well-being. The statistically significant findings appear to suggest that socio-demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, housing, and education level) have stronger predictive values than companion animal ownership status with respect to the well-being of people in Hong Kong. Due the unique environmental features in Hong Kong, the positive impacts of companion animal ownership on the physical well-being of owners may be limited by the city’s cramped living space and the limited number of people who own companion animals. However, results suggested that companion animals may still serve as a social lubricant between the owners and their significant others, thereby playing a heightened role significant role in enhancing general social connectedness in a metropolis. Given the importance of animals as human companions, it is suggested that relevant administrative agencies need to consider the development of policies and facilities which are conducive to both the maintenance and development of the bonds between humans and their companion animals and the physical and psychosocial health of both.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul W.C. Wong & Rose W.M. Yu & Joe T.K. Ngai, 2019. "Companion Animal Ownership and Human Well-Being in a Metropolis—The Case of Hong Kong," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-14, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:10:p:1729-:d:231691
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/10/1729/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/10/1729/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Headey & Markus Grabka, 2007. "Pets and Human Health in Germany and Australia: National Longitudinal Results," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 297-311, January.
    2. Cutt, H. & Giles-Corti, B. & Knuiman, M. & Timperio, A. & Bull, F., 2008. "Understanding dog owners' increased levels of physical activity: Results from RESIDE," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(1), pages 66-69.
    3. Jessica Saunders & Layla Parast & Susan H Babey & Jeremy V Miles, 2017. "Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for human-animal interaction research and policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Bruce Headey, 1999. "Health Benefits and Health Cost Savings Due to Pets: Preliminary Estimates from an Australian National Survey," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 233-243, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jessica Saunders & Layla Parast & Susan H Babey & Jeremy V Miles, 2017. "Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for human-animal interaction research and policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Emily Shoesmith & Lion Shahab & Dimitra Kale & Daniel S. Mills & Catherine Reeve & Paul Toner & Luciana Santos de Assis & Elena Ratschen, 2021. "The Influence of Human–Animal Interactions on Mental and Physical Health during the First COVID-19 Lockdown Phase in the U.K.: A Qualitative Exploration," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Ferran Marsa-Sambola & Janine Muldoon & Joanne Williams & Alistair Lawrence & Melanie Connor & Candace Currie, 2016. "The Short Attachment to Pets Scale (SAPS) for Children and Young People: Development, Psychometric Qualities and Demographic and Health Associations," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 9(1), pages 111-131, March.
    4. Mieke Rijken & Sandra Beek, 2011. "About Cats and Dogs … Reconsidering the Relationship Between Pet Ownership and Health Related Outcomes in Community-Dwelling Elderly," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 373-388, July.
    5. Bruce Headey & Fu Na & Richard Zheng, 2008. "Pet Dogs Benefit Owners’ Health: A ‘Natural Experiment’ in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 481-493, July.
    6. Rebecca Utz, 2014. "Walking the Dog: The Effect of Pet Ownership on Human Health and Health Behaviors," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 327-339, April.
    7. Paul A.M. Overgaauw & Claudia M. Vinke & Marjan A.E. van Hagen & Len J.A. Lipman, 2020. "A One Health Perspective on the Human–Companion Animal Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-29, May.
    8. Tzu-Lin Yeh & Wei-Te Lei & Shu-Jung Liu & Kuo-Liong Chien, 2019. "A modest protective association between pet ownership and cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Svenja Damberg & Lena Frömbling, 2022. "“Furry tales”: pet ownership’s influence on subjective well-being during Covid-19 times," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 3645-3664, October.
    10. Clément Meier & Jürgen Maurer, 2022. "Buddy or burden? Patterns, perceptions, and experiences of pet ownership among older adults in Switzerland," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1201-1212, December.
    11. Kent, Jennifer L. & Mulley, Corinne & Stevens, Nick, 2020. "Challenging policies that prohibit public transport use: Travelling with pets as a case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 86-94.
    12. Headey, Bruce & Grabka, Markus M., 2007. "Pets and Human Health in Germany and Australia: National Longitudinal Results," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 80, pages 297-311.
    13. Bruce Headey & Markus M. Grabka, 2004. "The Relationship between Pet Ownership and Health Outcomes: German Longitudinal Evidence," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 434, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    14. Helen Peterson & Kristina Engwall, 2019. "“ Why Would You Want a Baby When You Could Have a Dog ?” Voluntarily Childless Women’s “Peternal” Feelings, Longing and Ambivalence," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, April.
    15. Morgan M. Wright & Pamela Schreiner & B. R. Simon Rosser & Elizabeth J. Polter & Darryl Mitteldorf & William West & Michael W. Ross, 2019. "The Influence of Companion Animals on Quality of Life of Gay and Bisexual Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-8, November.
    16. Stephanie L. Orstad & Kristin Szuhany & Kosuke Tamura & Lorna E. Thorpe & Melanie Jay, 2020. "Park Proximity and Use for Physical Activity among Urban Residents: Associations with Mental Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-13, July.
    17. Eloise C.J. Carr & Jean E. Wallace & Rianne Pater & Douglas P. Gross, 2019. "Evaluating the Relationship between Well-Being and Living with a Dog for People with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Feasibility Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    18. Gregg K. Takashima & Michael J. Day, 2014. "Setting the One Health Agenda and the Human–Companion Animal Bond," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-11, October.
    19. Emily Shoesmith & Panagiotis Spanakis & Emily Peckham & Paul Heron & Gordon Johnston & Lauren Walker & Suzanne Crosland & Elena Ratschen, 2021. "The Role of Animal Ownership for People with Severe Mental Illness during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Method Study Investigating Links with Health and Loneliness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-17, November.
    20. I. Audran & Jean-Marc Ferrandi & Nathalie Fleck-Dousteyssier, 2023. "Des influenceurs qui ont du chien ? Conditions d’efficacité de l’utilisation de chiens sur les réseaux sociaux," Post-Print hal-04381439, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:10:p:1729-:d:231691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.