CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Geographies of human-animal interactionsZoonotic diseases and public healthHuman-Animal Interaction Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Public perception of urban companion animals during the COVID-19 outbreak in China

Open access
Yin, Duo, Gao, Quan, Zhu, Hong, Li, Jie·2020·Health & Place
DOI 10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102399PMC PMC7386851
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper responds to the increasing concern regarding the role of non-human life in shaping urban space by exploring the public perception of urban companion animals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China. We argue that the public's perception of urban companion animals during emerging infectious disease outbreaks is related to medical and life science issues and reflects the political, economic, and emotional struggles involved in human-animal multispecies cohabitation. We find that the public has mainly followed and reconstructed medical discourses about the risk of companion animal-to-human transmission and discussed sustainable ethical animal practices in urban public health emergency management during the COVID-19 outbreak. Concerns regarding the risk of companion animal-related infection reflect the increasing prominence of more-than-human families, the pet industry, and multispecies leisure conflicts in public space in Chinese cities. The public's attention to animal ethics has prompted Chinese policy makers to adopt a more morally acceptable model for urban public health emergency management that can be sustained and supported by responsible non-governmental organizations and ethical urban residents.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102399

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Alirol, 2011, Urbanisation and infectious diseases in a globalised world, Lancet Infect. Dis., 11, 131, 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70223-1 · DOI
  2. Aspöck, 1992, Prevention of prenatal toxoplasmosis by serological screening of pregnant women in Austria, Scand. J. Infect. Dis. Suppl., 84
  3. Barua, 2014, Volatile ecologies: towards a material politics of human—animal relations, Environ. Plann.: Econ. Space, 46, 1462, 10.1068/a46138 · DOI
  4. Blecha, 2014, Reimagining the food system, the economy, and urban life: new urban chicken-keepers in US cities, Urban Geogr., 35, 86, 10.1080/02723638.2013.845999 · DOI
  5. Brackenridge, 2012, Dimensions of the human–animal bond and evacuation decisions among pet owners during Hurricane Ike, Anthrozoös, 25, 229, 10.2752/175303712X13316289505503 · DOI
  6. Braun, 2005, Environmental issues: writing a more-than-human urban geography, Prog. Hum. Geogr., 29, 635, 10.1191/0309132505ph574pr · DOI
  7. Buller, 2016, Animal geographies III: ethics, Prog. Hum. Geogr., 40, 422, 10.1177/0309132515580489 · DOI
  8. Chadwin, 2017, Evacuation of pets during disasters: a public health intervention to increase resilience, Am. J. Publ. Health, 107, 1413, 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303877 · DOI
  9. Chalfoun, 2002, Nest predators and fragmentation: a review and meta‐analysis, Conserv. Biol., 16, 306, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00308.x · DOI
  10. Cheesbrough, 2019, Everyday wild: urban natural areas, health, and well-being, Health Place, 56, 43, 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.01.005 · DOI
  11. Cui, 2019, Situating animal ethics in Thai elephant tourism, Asia Pac. Viewp., 60, 267, 10.1111/apv.12221 · DOI
  12. Cutt, 2007, Dog ownership, health and physical activity: a critical review of the literature, Health Place, 13, 261, 10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.01.003 · DOI
  13. Day, 2017, Companion animals and natural disasters: a systematic review of literature, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 24, 81, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.015 · DOI
  14. Delwart, 2012, Animal virus discovery: improving animal health, understanding zoonoses, and opportunities for vaccine development, Curr. Opin. Virol., 2, 344, 10.1016/j.coviro.2012.02.012 · DOI
  15. Dijak, 2000, Landscape and edge effects on the distribution of mammalian predators in Missouri, J. Wildl. Manag., 64, 209, 10.2307/3802992 · DOI
  16. Fennell, 2013, Tourism and animal welfare, Tour. Recreat. Res., 38, 325
  17. Fletcher, 2018, (Just) a walk with the dog? Animal geographies and negotiating walking spaces, Soc. Cult. Geogr., 19, 211, 10.1080/14649365.2016.1274047 · DOI
  18. Fox, 2006, Animal behaviours, post-human lives: everyday negotiations of the animal–human divide in pet-keeping, Soc. Cult. Geogr., 7, 525, 10.1080/14649360600825679 · DOI
  19. Gaunet, 2014, Description of dogs and owners in outdoor built-up areas and their more-than-human issues, Environ. Manag., 54, 383, 10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8 · DOI
  20. Glassey, 2018, Did harvey learn from Katrina? Initial observations of the response to companion animals during Hurricane Harvey, Animals, 8, 47, 10.3390/ani8040047 · DOI
  21. Greenhough, 2011, Ethics, space, and somatic sensibilities: comparing relationships between scientific researchers and their human and animal experimental subjects, Environ. Plann. Soc. Space, 29, 47, 10.1068/d17109 · DOI
  22. Guay, 2001, Pet-assisted therapy in the nursing home setting: potential for zoonosis, Am. J. Infect. Contr., 29, 178, 10.1067/mic.2001.115873 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hassell, 2017, Urbanization and disease emergence: dynamics at the wildlife-livestock-human interface, Trends Ecol. Evol., 32, 55, 10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.012 · DOI
  24. Heath, 2015, Challenges of managing animals in disasters in the U.S, Animals, 5, 173, 10.3390/ani5020173 · DOI
  25. Hill, 2002, Toxoplasma gondii: transmission, diagnosis and prevention, Clin. Microbiol. Infect., 8, 634, 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2002.00485.x · DOI
  26. Hudson, 2001, Disaster relief management of companion animals affected by the floods of Hurricane Floyd, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 218, 354, 10.2460/javma.2001.218.354 · DOI
  27. Hunt, 2008, Psychological sequelae of pet loss following Hurricane Katrina, Anthrozoös, 21, 109, 10.2752/175303708X305765 · DOI
  28. Instone, 2014, Dog waste, wasted dogs: the contribution of human-dog relations to the political ecology of Australian urban space, Geogr. Res., 52, 355, 10.1111/1745-5871.12059 · DOI
  29. Ji, 2020, Cross-species transmission of the newly identified coronavirus 2019-nCoV, J. Med. Virol., 92, 433, 10.1002/jmv.25682 · DOI
  30. Johnston, 2008, Beyond the clearing: towards a dwelt animal geography, Prog. Hum. Geogr., 32, 633, 10.1177/0309132508089825 · DOI
  31. Kapucu, 2012, Disaster and emergency management systems in urban areas, Cities, 29, S41, 10.1016/j.cities.2011.11.009 · DOI
  32. Karesh, 2005, Wildlife trade and global disease emergence, Emerg. Infect. Dis., 11, 1000, 10.3201/eid1107.050194 · DOI
  33. Keil, 2005, Progress report—urban political ecology, Urban Geogr., 26, 640, 10.2747/0272-3638.26.7.640 · DOI
  34. Keil, 2007, Governing the sick city: urban governance in the age of emerging infectious disease, Antipode, 39, 846, 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007.00555.x · DOI
  35. Koohsari, 2019, Dog-walking in dense compact areas: the role of neighbourhood built environment, Health Place, 61, 102242, 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102242 · DOI
  36. Li, 2020, Game consumption and the 2019 novel coronavirus, Lancet Infect. Dis., 20, 275, 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30063-3 · DOI
  37. Lloyd-Smith, 2009, Epidemic dynamics at the human-animal interface, Science, 326, 1362, 10.1126/science.1177345 · DOI
  38. Margulies, 2018, The production of human-wildlife conflict: a political animal geography of encounter, Geoforum, 95, 153, 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.011 · DOI
  39. McKeithen, 2017, Queer ecologies of home: heteronormativity, speciesism, and the strange intimacies of crazy cat ladies, Gend. Place Cult., 24, 122, 10.1080/0966369X.2016.1276888 · DOI
  40. Mouton, 2019, ‘When the dog bites’: what can we learn about health geography from newspaper coverage in a ‘model city’ for dog-bite prevention?, Health Place, 57, 70, 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.03.001 · DOI
  41. Nast, 2006, Critical pet studies?, Antipode, 38, 894, 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2006.00484.x · DOI
  42. Norton, 1984, Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism, Environ. Ethics, 6, 131, 10.5840/enviroethics19846233 · DOI
  43. Paul-Pierre, 2009, Emerging diseases, zoonoses and vaccines to control them, Vaccine, 27, 6435, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.06.021 · DOI
  44. Pavlin, 2009, Risk of importing zoonotic diseases through wildlife trade, United States, Emerg. Infect. Dis., 15, 1721, 10.3201/eid1511.090467 · DOI
  45. Pfefferle, 2011, The SARS-coronavirus-host interactome: identification of cyclophilins as target for pan-coronavirus inhibitors, PLoS Pathog., 7, 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002331 · DOI
  46. Power, 2008, Furry families: making a human–dog family through home, Soc. Cult. Geogr., 9, 535, 10.1080/14649360802217790 · DOI
  47. Power, 2012, Domestication and the dog: embodying home, Area, 44, 371, 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2012.01098.x · DOI
  48. Seiler, 2010, Antibodies to influenza A virus (H1 and H3) in companion animals in Iowa, USA, Vet. Rec., 167, 705, 10.1136/vr.c5120 · DOI
  49. Smith, 2009, Reducing the risks of the wildlife trade, Science, 324, 594, 10.1126/science.1174460 · DOI
  50. Soulsbury, 2016, Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities, Wildl. Res., 42, 541, 10.1071/WR14229 · DOI
  51. Srinivasan, 2013, The biopolitics of animal being and welfare: dog control and care in the UK and India, Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 38, 106, 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00501.x · DOI
  52. Srinivasan, 2019, Remaking more‐than‐human society: thought experiments on street dogs as “nature”, Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 44, 376, 10.1111/tran.12291 · DOI
  53. Stallins, 2013, The embeddedness of a North American snake in the wildlife pet trade and the production of assemblage biogeographies, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 103, 417, 10.1080/00045608.2013.765770 · DOI
  54. Tack, 2011, Zoonotic poxviruses associated with companion animals, Animals, 1, 377, 10.3390/ani1040377 · DOI
  55. Trigg, 2016, A moveable beast: subjective influence of human-animal relationships on risk perception, and risk behaviour during bushfire threat, Qual. Rep., 21, 1881
  56. Urbanik, 2013, A tale of tails: the place of dog parks in the urban imaginary, Geoforum, 44, 292, 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.08.001 · DOI
  57. van Stipriaan, 2009, Bitching about a billboard: advertising, gender and canine (re)presentations, N. Z. Geogr., 65, 126, 10.1111/j.1745-7939.2009.01155.x · DOI
  58. Wang, 2020, Wildlife consumption ban is insufficient, Science, 367, 10.1126/science.abb6463 · DOI
  59. Wu, 2004, Risk factors for SARS among persons without known contact with SARS patients, Beijing, China, Emerg. Infect. Dis., 10, 210, 10.3201/eid1002.030730 · DOI
  60. Xu, 2020, Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission, Sci. China Life Sci., 63, 457, 10.1007/s11427-020-1637-5 · DOI
  61. Yeo, 2010, Monkey business: human–animal conflicts in urban Singapore, Soc. Cult. Geogr., 11, 681, 10.1080/14649365.2010.508565 · DOI
  62. Zhang, 2019, Public perception of haze weather based on Weibo comments, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health, 16, E4767, 10.3390/ijerph16234767 · DOI
  63. Zhao, 2020, COVID-19 drives new threat to bats in China, Science, 367, 1436, 10.1126/science.abb3088 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yin, D., Gao, Q., Zhu, H., & Li, J.
Affiliations
  • Guangzhou University (CN)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Health & Place
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
65
Pages
102399
ISSN
1353-8292 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102399
PMC
PMC7386851
OpenAlex
W3045840348
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6
FWCI
12.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health & Place (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (41901173, 41971184)
  • China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M662835)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2018b030312004)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographies of human-animal interactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Zoonotic diseases and public health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
Keywords
public perception, COVID-19 outbreak, human-animal relations, zoonotic transmission, animal ethics, public health emergency management, pet industry, urban public space
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Animals, China, Disease Outbreaks, Emotions, Humans, Perception, Pneumonia, Viral, Zoonoses, Coronavirus Infections, Pets, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review