Rabina Ghimire ^1* Parimala Mohanty ² Elly Hiby ³ Andrew Larkins ^4,5 Salome Dürr ⁶ Sonja Hartnack ¹

• ¹ Section of Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
• ² Jyoti and Bhupat Mehta School of Health Science and Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India
• ³ International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM), Cambridge, England, United Kingdom
• ⁴ School of Medical, Molecular and Forensic Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia
• ⁵ Centre for Biosecurity and One Health, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
• ⁶ Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Introduction: Dog Population Management (DPM) systems primarily aim to reduce the freeroaming dog population, improve the health and welfare of humans and dogs, and foster their peaceful coexistence. A key challenge to resource allocation and evidence-based policy making in DPM is the rare evaluation of the associated socio-economic impacts. This scoping review identifies, maps, and summarizes published parameters and methods on the socio-economic aspect of DPM systems. Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, and with a protocol registered on the Open Science Framework, this review explores i) types of DPM services, ii) types of parameters (intervention, impact, monetized, or non-monetized), iii) methodological approaches (such as cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis), and iv) gaps and challenges in socio-economic DPM assessments. Relevant publications were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Results: Our review identified 14 out of more than 7200 studies indicating the limitation of socio-economic data associated with DPM systems. The studies revealed diverse approaches to DPM, sterilization being the most frequently used service, often combined with vaccination and community awareness. Culling was also used by several studies as a DPM intervention, though considered unethical. The review highlighted a range of intervention, impact, and monetary parameters to evaluate the economics of DPM systems, demonstrating the complexity and varied scope of the services. Varied categorizations of the dog population were observed, making comparative evaluation challenging. Economic methods such as cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses were observed, identifying several associated economic metrics. Studies highlighted gaps mostly related to data availability and accessibility. Conclusions: The limitations of socio-economic data arise from a lack of standardized methodologies across regions and contexts and limited data collection efforts. Developing tools and standardized reporting methods would further facilitate consistent evaluation of impacts, efficient resource allocation and evidence-based policy making to implement the most cost-effective DPM systems.