FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
PloS one2018; 13(2); e0191950; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191950

Improving working equine welfare in ‘hard-win’ situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal.

Abstract: Brooke is a non-government organisation with working equine welfare programmes across Africa, Asia and Latin America. In 2014, staff from ten country programmes were asked to identify 'no-win' situations (subsequently reframed as 'hard-wins')-where improving equine welfare is proving difficult, expensive and/or marginal-in order to inform strategic decisions on how to approach, manage and mitigate for such situations. The Delphi-type consultation process had three phases. Round 1 posed five questions in the form of a workshop, survey and semi-structured interviews. Round 2 re-presented key themes and sense-checked initial conclusions. Round 3 reviewed the nature and prevalence of hard-win situations at an international meeting of all participants. Reasons given for hard-win situations included: no economic or social benefit from caring for working animals; poor resource availability; lack of empathy for working equids or their owners among wider stakeholders; deep-seated social issues, such as addiction or illegal working; areas with a high animal turnover or migratory human population; lack of community cooperation or cohesion; unsafe areas where welfare interventions cannot be adequately supported. Participants estimated the prevalence of hard-win situations as 40-70% of their work. They suggested some current ways of working that may be contributing to the problem, and opportunities to tackle hard-wins more effectively. Respondents agreed that if equine welfare improvements are to span generations of animals, interventions cannot rely on relatively simple, technical knowledge-transfer strategies and quick-wins alone. Programmes need to be more flexible and iterative and less risk-averse in their approaches to embedding good equine welfare practices in all relevant actors. Consultation recommendations informed development of Brooke's new global strategy, a revised organisational structure and redefinition of roles and responsibilities to streamline ways to approach hard-wins in the complex environments and socio-economic contexts in which working equids are found.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-02-06 PubMed ID: 29408887PubMed Central: PMC5800664DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191950Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research covers the efforts to improve the welfare of working equines (horses, donkeys, and mules) in challenging situations, where significant outcomes are hard-won and expensive. The study was conducted by the Brooke non-profit organization, and it involved identifying and discussing complex problems that hinder equine welfare improvement, focusing on finding better strategic decisions to tackle them.

Research Methodology

  • The research used a Delphi-type consultation process which contains three rounds to gather data and feedback. It involved staff from ten of Brooke’s country programmes.
  • The first round involved a workshop, survey, and semi-structured interviews based on five key questions.
  • The second round presented the key themes identified and validated the initial conclusions.
  • The third round involved an international meeting where participants reviewed the prevalence of ‘hard-win’ situations.

‘Hard-Win’ Situation Factors

  • Factors contributing to hard-win situations as identified in the study include a lack of economic or social benefit in caring for working animals, limited resource availability, and lack of empathy for working equines and their owners among stakeholders.
  • Deep-rooted societal issues, such as addiction or illegal work, regions characterized by high animal turnover or migratory human populations, and unsafe areas where welfare interventions cannot be adequately supported also contribute.
  • Lack of community cooperation and cohesion is another significant factor.

Prevalence and Impact

  • Participants estimated that hard-win situations encompassed 40-70% of their work.
  • The study highlighted the need for a change in approach in order to effectively navigate these hard-win situations. It suggested that equine welfare programmes need to adjust their working methods as they may be contributing to the issue.
  • According to the participants, if equine welfare improvements are to affect generations of animals, they cannot rely on quick-fix approaches, and just transferring technical knowledge.

Recommendations and Improved Practices

  • There is a suggested need for more flexible and iterative programmes and less risk-averse approaches to ingraining good equine welfare practices in all relevant actors.
  • The recommendations from the consultation influenced the development of a new global strategy by Brooke and the redefinition of roles and responsibilities within its organisational structure.

All these measures aim to enhance the non-profit’s ability to approach and manage these hard-win situations, particularly focusing on improving the welfare of working equines in complex environments and varying socio-economic contexts.

Cite This Article

APA
Pritchard J, Upjohn M, Hirson T. (2018). Improving working equine welfare in ‘hard-win’ situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal. PLoS One, 13(2), e0191950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191950

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 2
Pages: e0191950
PII: e0191950

Researcher Affiliations

Pritchard, Joy
  • Brooke, London, United Kingdom.
Upjohn, Melissa
  • Brooke, London, United Kingdom.
Hirson, Tamsin
  • Brooke, London, United Kingdom.

MeSH Terms

  • Animal Welfare
  • Animals
  • Horses

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 34 references
  1. FAOSTAT database [internet] Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Statistical Database: Production, Live animals. 2014. [cited 2016 October 20]. http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/browse/Q/QA/E
  2. Valette D. Invisible Helpers: women’s views on the contributions of working donkeys, horses, and mules to their lives Key findings from research in Ethiopia, Kenya, India and Pakistan. London; The Brooke: 2014.
  3. Van Dijk L, Pritchard JC. Designing programmes for sustainable animal welfare improvement. In: Editor The Brooke The 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids: Learning From Others. Proceedings of an international colloquium held at the Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India 29th November—2nd December 2010. The Brooke, 30 Farringdon Street, London EC4A 4HH UK pp51-54.
  4. McInerney J. Animal welfare, economics and policy: report on a study undertaken for the farm and animal health economics division of DEFRA 2004 London. Funded by Department of the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs.
  5. Collins J, Hanlon A, More SJ, Wall PG, Duggan V. Policy Delphi with vignette methodology as a tool to evaluate the perception of equine welfare.. Vet J 2009 Jul;181(1):63-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.012pubmed: 19375962google scholar: lookup
  6. Wentholt MT, Cardoen S, Imberechts H, Van Huffel X, Ooms BW, Frewer LJ. Defining European preparedness and research needs regarding emerging infectious animal diseases: results from a Delphi expert consultation.. Prev Vet Med 2012 Feb 1;103(2-3):81-92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.09.021pubmed: 22000288google scholar: lookup
  7. EWB Engineers without Borders Canada. ‘Admitting Failure’ and ‘Fail Forward’ programmes. 2010.
  8. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions.. Implement Sci 2011 Apr 23;6:42.
    pmc: PMC3096582pubmed: 21513547doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42google scholar: lookup
  9. Ellerman D. Autonomy-Respecting Assistance: toward an alternative theory of development assistance. Rev Soc Econ 2004; 62 (2): 149–168.
  10. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.
  11. Ramalingam B, Laric M, Primrose J. From Best Practice to Best Fit: understanding and navigating wicked problems in international development. 2014 ODI Working Paper, Overseas Development Institute: London, UK.
  12. Ko M, Bindman AB. No man is an island: disentangling multilevel effects in health services research.. BMJ Qual Saf 2014 Mar;23(3):177-9.
    doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002591pubmed: 24200544google scholar: lookup
  13. Ruger JP. Health capability: conceptualization and operationalization.. Am J Public Health 2010 Jan;100(1):41-9.
    doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143651pmc: PMC2791246pubmed: 19965570google scholar: lookup
  14. Van Dijk L, Pritchard JC, Pradhan SK, Wells K. Sharing the Load: a guide to improving the welfare of working animals through collective action. Practical Action Publishing; Rugby, UK: 2010. pp139–235.
  15. Wong ST, Regan S. Patient perspectives on primary health care in rural communities: effects of geography on access, continuity and efficiency.. Rural Remote Health 2009 Jan-Mar;9(1):1142.
    pubmed: 19298094
  16. Broster CE, Burn CC, Barr AR, Whay HR. The range and prevalence of pathological abnormalities associated with lameness in working horses from developing countries.. Equine Vet J 2009 May;41(5):474-81.
    pubmed: 19642408doi: 10.2746/042516409x373907google scholar: lookup
  17. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DC, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters.. Prev Vet Med 2005 Jul 12;69(3-4):265-83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  18. Wessells MG. Do no harm: toward contextually appropriate psychosocial support in international emergencies.. Am Psychol 2009 Nov;64(8):842-54.
    doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.842pubmed: 19899908google scholar: lookup
  19. Yesuf M, Bluffstone RA. Poverty, risk aversion, and path dependence in low-income countries: experimental evidence from Ethiopia. Am J Agric Econ 2009; 91 (4): 1022–1037.
  20. Schön DA. Beyond the Stable State. New York: Norton; 1971.
  21. Jones H. Taking responsibility for complexity: How implementation can achieve results in the face of complex problems. 2011 ODI Working Paper 330. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.
  22. Ramalingam B, Jones H. Exploring the science of complexity: Ideas and implications for development and humanitarian efforts. 2008 ODI Working Paper 285. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.
  23. Easterly W. The White Man’s Burden. New York: Penguin Press, 2006.
  24. Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, Grilli R, Harvey E, Oxman A, O'Brien MA. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions.. Med Care 2001 Aug;39(8 Suppl 2):II2-45.
    pubmed: 11583120
  25. Ireland JL, Clegg PD, McGowan CM, McKane SA, Chandler KJ, Pinchbeck GL. Comparison of owner-reported health problems with veterinary assessment of geriatric horses in the United Kingdom.. Equine Vet J 2012 Jan;44(1):94-100.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00394.xpubmed: 21696434google scholar: lookup
  26. Burford JH, Bowden A, Curtis L, Hannelly E, England GCW, Freeman SL. Development of a research-based owner educational campaign on the recognition and assessment of equine colic. Equine Vet Educ 2017; 29 Suppl 8: S19.
  27. Weary DM, Ventura BA, von Keyserlingk MA. Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories.. Animal 2016 Feb;10(2):309-17.
    pubmed: 26206166doi: 10.1017/s1751731115001160google scholar: lookup
  28. Davis R, Campbell R, Hildon Z, Hobbs L, Michie S. Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review.. Health Psychol Rev 2015;9(3):323-44.
    doi: 10.1080/17437199.2014.941722pmc: PMC4566873pubmed: 25104107google scholar: lookup
  29. Taylor D, Bury M, Campling N, Carter S, Garfied S, Newbould J. Review of the use of the Health Belief Model (HBM), the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and the Trans-Theoretical Model (TTM) to study and predict health related behaviour change. 2006 Review undertaken for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
  30. Masten AS. Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in development.. Am Psychol 2001 Mar;56(3):227-38.
    pubmed: 11315249doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.227google scholar: lookup
  31. Edgar JL, Mullan SM, Pritchard JC, McFarlane UJ, Main DC. Towards a 'Good Life' for Farm Animals: Development of a Resource Tier Framework to Achieve Positive Welfare for Laying Hens.. Animals (Basel) 2013 Jul 5;3(3):584-605.
    pmc: PMC4494453pubmed: 26479523doi: 10.3390/ani3030584google scholar: lookup
  32. Yeates JW, Main DC. Assessment of positive welfare: a review.. Vet J 2008 Mar;175(3):293-300.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009pubmed: 17613265google scholar: lookup
  33. Pritchard JC. What role do working equids play in human livelihoods, and how well is this currently recognised?. In: Wade JF editor The Seventh International Colloquium on Working Equids 2014. Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium on Working Equids, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK, 1st– 3rd July 2014 p2-6.
  34. Frewer LJ, Fischer ARH, Wentholt MTA, Marvin HJP, Ooms BW, Coles DG. The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: some lessons learned. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2011; 78 (9): 1514–1525.

Citations

This article has been cited 19 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.