No Dog Left Behind: A Hedonic Pricing Model for Animal Shelters

Abstract

Companion animal overpopulation is a growing problem in the United States. In addition to strays, an average of 324,500 nonhuman animals are relinquished to shelters yearly by their caregivers due to family disruption (divorce, death), foreclosure, economic problems, or minor behavioral issues. As a result, estimates of animals in shelters range from 3 million to 8 million, and due to overcrowding, euthanasia is common. This analysis seeks to determine the appropriate pricing mechanisms to clear animal shelters of dogs in the manner most desirable-that is, through adoption. Based on a survey of Michigan residents, it is clear there are a number of correlations between the traits of dogs and the individuals who care for them. Hedonic pricing models indicate that animal shelters need to proactively vary their pricing systems to discount particular traits, specifically for mixed-breed, older, and black dogs. Premiums can be charged for puppies, purebred dogs, and those who have received specific services such as microchipping.

Stated Preferences for Dog Characteristics and Sources of Acquisition

“…These findings are in line with those indicating that women often show higher levels of concern for animal welfare than do men [ 26 ]. The pro-adoption stance of women is also consistent with reports by Markovits and Queen [ 27 ], that women predominate in dog rescue/sheltering and by Reese et al [ 28 ], who noted that women were more likely to obtain dogs for rescue purposes and to get them from humane organizations such as shelters/rescues or from friends. This idea was further reflected by the class membership of women in the LCM.…”

“…Further, a higher percentage of those with at least a college degree selected important for the characteristics, “Experience/reputation of source” and “Source of the dog” when compared to the percentage of respondents with less than a college degree. This finding resembles that of Reese et al [ 28 ], who found that respondents with college degrees were more likely to adopt from a shelter or rescue, suggesting that supporting humane organizations may be important to this demographic.…”

“…Few studies have been conducted that provide a basis for understanding the results regarding the income demographic analysis. However, findings by Reese et al [ 28 ], indicating that people with lower incomes (under $20,000) were more likely than those in other income groups to obtain dogs from sources other than breeders (family members or other people), suggest that they may be more open to acquiring dogs that have been previously homed or that they have not specifically purchased. This is in agreement with the finding that a higher percentage of respondents with an income of $76,000–$100,000 disagreed with the statement that people should have choices when acquiring a dog.…”

“…This suggestion is further supported by the finding that a lower percentage of respondents in the income category $0–$25,000 selected physical health and experience as an important characteristic when compared to the other income categories. Additionally, previous studies found higher income groups were more likely to have obtained a dog from a breeder than those in lower income categories [ 28 ]. In contrast, those with lower incomes may be more sensitive to the expenses of dog ownership, and thus costs may be more influential in decisions about dog acquisition for these persons.…”

“…This suggests that there has been effective translation of publicly disseminated messages promoting adoption as the ethical path to dog acquisition (relative to purchasing of dogs or obtaining them in other ways). Many of these messages and communications represent adoption as a more responsible option than the purchasing of dogs from stores and breeders, while the latter are often portrayed as commodifying dogs [ 28 , 33 ].…”