animals

Article
Dog Ecology and Demographics in Several Areas in the
Philippines and Its Application to Anti-Rabies
Vaccination Programs
Amit Chaudhari 1, * , Tamara Kartal 1 , George Brill 1 , Kazami Joanne Amano 2 , Maria Glofezita Lagayan 3
and Daphne Jorca 3

1 Humane Society International, 2100 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA; [email protected] (T.K.);
[email protected] (G.B.)
2 Independent Consultant, Davao City 8000, Philippines; [email protected]
3 Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), Department of Agriculture, Visayas Avenue, Diliman,
Quezon City 1101, Philippines; [email protected] (M.G.L.); [email protected] (D.J.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Simple Summary: Dog population estimates are necessary to design effective rabies and dog pop-
ulation control programs. Dog population sizes vary drastically from country to country and vary
within a country based on human tolerance, pet ownership practices, culture, religion, and several
other factors. Human density, level of urbanisation and human settlement types (urban, semi-urban
and rural) also play a role in the size of the dog population. Humane dog management programs
have shown that dog density per km street length is one measure to monitor the program’s impact.
However, we argue here that efficient sterilisation and vaccination program planning also requires an
estimate of the total dog population. In the Philippines, we have conducted owned dog population



surveys (household surveys and dog demographic surveys), which have proven to be very effective


in planning high-volume vaccination programs. Following the implementation of the dog surveys
Citation: Chaudhari, A.; Kartal, T.;
and the subsequent understanding by local officials that actual dog populations were far higher than
Brill, G.; Amano, K.J.; Lagayan, M.G.;
Jorca, D. Dog Ecology and
originally assumed, a higher rabies vaccination coverage was achieved in two target cities due to a
Demographics in Several Areas in the correction in the number of vaccines doses needed.
Philippines and Its Application to
Anti-Rabies Vaccination Programs. Abstract: Understanding dog population dynamics plays a vital role in planning both rabies and
Animals 2022, 12, 105. https:// dog management interventions. Establishing a human to dog ratio and an understanding how the
doi.org/10.3390/ani12010105 urban/rural nature of the community might affect the overall dog population estimate provides an
easy-to-use reference to estimate approximate dog populations in a range of communities. A total of
Academic Editor: Nicola Rooney
10,664 households were interviewed in 10 locations in the Philippines (2017 and 2018) to understand
Received: 16 September 2021 the dog population variations among the urban, semi-urban and rural areas. Epicollect5 and OSM
Accepted: 28 December 2021 tracker applications were used to conduct household interviews using a predesigned fixed set of
Published: 2 January 2022
questions. All answers were recorded directly using mobile phone applications. The survey results
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral showed that for every 1000 humans, there are 256.3 dogs in rural areas, 213.8 dogs in semi-rural areas,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in 208.7 dogs in urban areas and 170.0 dogs on small islands of the Philippines. We estimate a total dog
published maps and institutional affil- population in the Philippines of 23.29 million dogs (CI 95%, 22.51–24.07 million). Based on the survey
iations. findings from Quezon City and Cebu City, targets, resources allocations and vaccination approach
were adjusted for the anti-rabies vaccination program at two locations in 2018, which lead to a 3- to
4-fold increase in the total number of dogs vaccinated in each city compared to previous years.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

Keywords: dog population; household survey; dog; dogs per 1000 humans; dog density; anti-rabies
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
vaccination; mobile phone application; mass vaccination; rabies
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Animals 2022, 12, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010105 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals

Animals 2022, 12, 105 2 of 17

1. Introduction
Dogs have evolved to be with humans or close to human settlements for survival [1].
Dogs are usually very dependent on human food provision and the relative dog population
(e.g., dogs per 1000 people) fluctuates according to the level of human tolerance [2]. In
many countries (mostly high income), the relationship between humans and dogs has
reached the stage where dogs are part of the family and are mostly very well taken care
of. However, there are still large populations of roaming dogs living in harsh conditions
on the streets in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It is usually difficult to distinguish the
ownership status of free-roaming dogs; therefore, it is not unusual for owned but partly
roaming dogs to be identified as unowned dogs. There is growing evidence that these
free-roaming dogs are mostly owned not dependent on garbage, but rather dependent on
the direct provision of food by humans [3–5].
In the last ten to twenty years, the number of papers reporting dog populations (both
owned and roaming on the streets) has increased significantly [6–8]. These dog census
projects have often been conducted to provide estimates of the proportion of dogs that
need to be vaccinated against rabies (it is usually assumed that one has to vaccinate 70% of
a dog population to eliminate the transmission of rabies among dogs and hence to people).
To plan an effective rabies management program, it is vital to have a realistic estimate
of the number of dogs present in specific areas of interest. Unfortunately, estimating actual
population size with high accuracy can be a resource-intensive and complicated process.
For that reason, it is often more feasible to approximate dog population sizes using simpler
kinds of metrics. One option is to conduct counts of roaming dogs along transects and use
the resulting data to calculate an index of density describing the number of dogs seen per
km of the transect. Although this index does not give true population size, it does provide
a valuable indicator of the relative density of dogs in different areas or during different
periods. Another approach is to use a proxy variable—usually human density, which
is typically known—as an indicator of likely dog density. This is often expressed as the
number of dogs present per 1000 people. Data to generate this metric can be obtained with
transect surveys, household questionnaires or a combination of these methods. Each of
these methods has its own strengths and weaknesses and, furthermore, they tend to sample
overlapping, but not equivalent segments of the total dog population. If we know what
knowledge exists among the people and what practices they follow, it will help planning
a more effective program. It also provides an opportunity to program implementor to
identify hurdles and find realistic solutions.
Several methods to estimate dog population are available, often consisting of a combi-
nation of questionnaire surveys and street counts, depending on the dog demographics in a
community [9]. Humane Society International (HSI) has conducted numerous dog surveys
in Asia and Africa has reported the relative dog population in particular communities,
i.e., the number of dogs per 100 or 1000 humans. HSI has also conducted numerous KAP
(Knowledge, Attitude and Practice) surveys to understand dog ownership practices and to
estimate sterilisation and vaccination program costs. One very simple method of estimating
the impact of a sterilisation program on street dog population is the development of one or
more index survey routes where the number of dogs observed along the route at set times
and times of year are counted and plotted on a graph showing the changes in observed dog
numbers and sterilisation status [10]. Taking only free-roaming dogs count and measuring
dog density per km is not sufficient for owned roaming dog populations, as the roaming
dog density is under the direct control of dog owners.
Dogs on the street are at high risk of contracting disease from other dogs as well
as creating a risk to the community. Zoonotic diseases, including rabies, are a serious
concern for many governments [11]. Free-roaming dogs and rabies transmission are
closely linked in many low-income countries and large unmanaged dog populations are a
particularly daunting challenge for rabies control [12,13]. Understanding the demography
of domestic dogs is essential when planning a dog population management and rabies
control program [14,15].
Animals 2022, 12, 105 3 of 17

The lack of dog population estimates has led to ineffective rabies vaccination pro-
grams [16]. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed a tool for
vaccination campaign planning that requires dog demographic data to develop an appro-
priate vaccination program, including data on free-roaming owned, free-roaming unowned
and owned confined dogs [17]. Most dogs in the developing world are short-lived and the
high turnover rapidly reduces the level of vaccination coverage in a dog population [18].
Several anti-rabies vaccination programs in Asia and Africa have not achieved the required
70% vaccination coverage, the target level of vaccination that is projected to break rabies
transmission in a dog population for twelve months [16].
In the Philippines, vaccinating dogs against rabies and registering owned dogs with the
local government authority is mandatory. Keeping a dog on a leash when in public places is
also mandatory by law (Republic Act No. 9482 “Anti-rabies Act of 2007”—a system for the
control, prevention of the spread and eventual eradication of human and animal Rabies shall
be provided and the need for responsible pet ownership established) [19]. Nevertheless,
free-roaming dogs on the street are common and dog-mediated rabies is prevalent across
the Philippines [20]. The National Rabies Prevention and Control Manual of Procedures
in the Philippines provides guidelines on the estimation of the dog population. The most
common estimate when planning rabies control projects has been that there is 1 dog per
10 humans [20].
Rabies is endemic in the Philippines and remains a major public health concern. It
has a fatality rate of almost 100% and at least one-third of these deaths occur in children
aged 15 years old and below. Nationally, the number of animal bite cases in the country
increased by 462%, from 2009 (206,253 bite cases) to 2018 (1,159,711 bite cases) [20]. The
confirmed number of positive human rabies cases increased by 13.5% between 2009 and
2018, from the 243 cases reported in 2009 to 276 in 2018 [20].

2. Materials and Methods

In preparation for a new strategy of anti-rabies vaccination programs, the Depart-
ment of Agriculture Regional Field Offices (DARFO) of the Bureau of Animal Industry
(BAI) and Humane Society International conducted cross sectional surveys to generate
dog population estimates and densities across urban and rural areas. Ten different urban,
semi-urban and rural locations were surveyed either based on local governments request
or as a part of an evidence-based rabies control program strategy that BAI and HSI agreed
to develop. These surveys were conducted at different times and by different team combi-
nations between 2017–2018. A standard method and established protocol were followed
during each location’s survey. A short questionnaire to record dog demographics targeting
randomly selected households in all locations was developed. However, in Quezon City,
a longer questionnaire was added to explore Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP)
in the selected barangays (A small territorial and administrative district forming the most
local level of government).

2.1. Phone Based Application and Survey Questionnaire

Two different smartphone applications were used for household surveys: Open Street
Map (OSM) Tracker with a layout specifically designed for a shorter version of the ques-
tionnaire and Epicollect5 (https://five.epicollect.net/, accessed on 27 December 2021) to
conduct the longer version. The shorter version was designed to reach a large number of
households and was used at all the survey locations. The longer questionnaire was used
only in Quezon City in addition to the shorter version.
The short version included an icon-based set of questions for dog-owning households
(DOHH) and no dog-owning households (NDOHH). The surveyor selects an icon on the
OSM Tracker display to record the answers (Figure 1). Each surveyed household was asked
whether or not they owned one or more dogs and in the event of a dog-owning household,
the surveyor further asked the sex of the dog, confinement practices followed by the owner,
sterilisation and vaccination status and willingness to vaccinate and sterilize. The data in
 Animals 2021, 11, x 4 of 18

dog-owning household, the surveyor further asked the sex of the dog, confinement
practices followed by the owner, sterilisation and vaccination status and willingness to
Animals 2022, 12, 105 4 of 17
vaccinate and sterilize. The data in the form of GPX files were uploaded to a specifically
designed Access database to produce results from uploaded GPX files. Screen A (Figure
1) was the main screen used to record if participant’s house is DOHH or NDOHH,
the form of
whereas GPX files
screen were 1)
B (Figure uploaded
appeared to upon
a specifically
selectingdesigned Access
the ‘details’ database
icon to produce
on the main screen
results
and wasfrom uploaded
used to record GPX
eachfiles.
dog’sScreen A in
details (Figure 1) was
the case the main screen used to record
of DOHH.
if participant’s house isapproached
Each household DOHH or NDOHH, whereas
for the survey wasscreen
askedBthe(Figure 1) appeared
questions below upon
in the
selecting
shorter version; the questions were in the form of icons on the OSM Tracker. The details
the ‘details’ icon on the main screen and was used to record each dog’s questionsin
the case of DOHH.
indicated by the icons on the screens are listed below.
Each household approached for the survey was asked the questions below in the
shorter 1.
Figure Screenshots
version; of OSM Tracker
the questions were application
in the formwith modified
of icons layout
on the OSM showing icons-based
Tracker. screen
The questions
used in shorter version to conduct household surveys at all the locations.
indicated by the icons on the screens are listed below.

Screen1.A:
Figure DOHH—Dog
Screenshots of OSMowning
Trackerhousehold,
application NDOH—Non dog owning
with modified layout showinghousehold;
icons-basedScreen
screen
used in shorter version to conduct household surveys at all the locations.
B: In the case of DOHH, further, we asked below detail for each owned dog.
• Screen
GenderA:ofDOHH—Dog
dog—Female,owning Male household, NDOH—Non dog owning household;
•
Screen B: In the case of DOHH, further,bywe
Confinement practices followed owner—Confined
asked below detail allfor
theeach
timeowned
(confine yes), not
dog.
• confined at all the
Gender of dog—Female, Male time (confine no) and Female dog confined during the heat
• (confine heat)practices followed by owner—Confined all the time (confine yes), not
Confinement
• confined
If the dog was
at all thevaccinated against
time (confine rabies
no) and in thedog
Female lastconfined
one year and, in
during thecase
heatof un-
(con-
vaccinated
fine heat) dog, surveyor to further asked owner’s willingness for vaccination if it
• were to be provided free—Vaccinated in the last one year (vacc),
If the dog was vaccinated against rabies in the last one year and, in case of un- willing to vaccinate
(vacc OK) and
vaccinated dog,not willingto
surveyor tofurther
vaccinate (vacc
asked NO) willingness for vaccination if it
owner’s
• were
If thetodog
be was sterilized
provided or not and in case
free—Vaccinated in the oflast
an unsterilized dog,willing
one year (vacc), owner’stowillingness
vaccinate
to sterilize
(vacc OK) and if itnot
were to beto
willing provided
vaccinatefree—Sterilized
(vacc NO) (steril), willing to sterilize (steril
• IfOK)
the and not willing
dog was to or
sterilized sterilize
not and(steril NO)
in case of an unsterilized dog, owner’s willingness
to sterilize if it were to be provided free—Sterilized (steril), willing to sterilize (steril
OK) and not willing to sterilize (steril NO)
It was considered culturally insensitive to ask if the female dog was tethered during
the heat (confine heat) and so it was not asked at any surveyed locations.
Animals 2022, 12, 105 5 of 17

The longer version of the questionnaire (conducted only in Quezon City) collected
more detailed information on household demographics, knowledge, attitudes regarding
dogs, rabies prevention and dog bite wound care knowledge should a household member
be bitten and knowledge concerning the rabies program and human attitudes to rabies
and dog management practices in Quezon City. The set of questions was created in the
Epicollect5, which allows questions not applicable to the participant to be skipped. For
example, if a household does not own a dog, upon selecting NDOHH, the questionnaire
skipped the questions related to dog details.
To maintain consistency in data collection at each location, surveyors were given two
days of indoor (theoretical) and outdoor in situ (practical) survey protocol training before
starting household survey. Each survey team consisted of two individuals, either two gov-
ernment employees or one government employee and one Humane Society International
staff. For each location, several teams were trained and employed for household surveys.

2.2. Survey Design and Household Selection

The local government provided digital map files for each survey location to identify
and locate each barangay via Google Maps. Using the most recent census data, barangays
were stratified into human density categories (rural and urban) and an Excel sheet was
used to draw a random sample of the barangays for survey by generating unique random
numbers in excel using the RAND function. Each randomly selected barangay was marked
on Google Maps and shared with the survey team. Table 1 provides a listing location and
the sample size for each survey. For example, Cebu City areas were divided into rural and
urban areas based on human population density. Rural areas were defined as those with a
human population below 5000 humans per square kilometer. Urban areas were defined as
those with more than 9000 humans per square kilometer. Thirty rural barangays and fifty
urban barangays were classified. The barangays were distributed across the North and
South regions, with 46 barangays located in the north and 34 barangays in the south of Cebu
City. This gave us four identified categories: North Rural (16 barangays), North Urban
(30 barangays), South Rural (14 barangays) and South Urban (20 barangays). Using the
free online sample size calculator, Raosoft® , it was determined that 2020 households would
need to be surveyed to achieve a confidence level of 95% for the owned dog population
survey. The final sample included 4 North Rural barangays, 5 North Urban barangays,
3 South Rural barangays and 6 South Urban barangays that were randomly selected using
Microsoft Excel. The household sample size to be surveyed per barangay varied from 40 to
240. This was dependent on the barangay’s population density and the number and spatial
distribution of households.
Survey teams received a map/area boundary in Google Maps with marker pins in-
dicating where they would conduct the surveys. Households were selected in a stratified
random sampling method around the pins. A target number of households were inter-
viewed, walking zigzag in small rectangle or square area around the marker pin, making
sure not to reach closer to another marker pin and interviewing every 5th or 10th household
either on the right or left side only.
Additionally, barangays in Quezon City, where we conducted the KAP survey were
selected based on the available bite and rabies statistics for both humans and animals
(provided by the City Veterinary Offices). Priority was given to barangays with the highest
incidence of confirmed animal rabies cases, followed by dog bite cases admitted to the
hospital from the barangays. The sample size for each KAP barangay was 200 households.
Across the Philippines, several locations were surveyed (Figure 2) using the same
methodology. The sample size was based on the urbanisation of the location and resources
available for the survey.
Animals 2022, 12, 105 6 of 17

Table 1. Number of households surveyed, dog population estimates, dogs per 1000 humans, per-
centage of dog owning households, average number of dogs per household, dogs per dog owning
household, percentage of female dogs in the population and percentage of dogs allowed to roam freely
for some or all of the day in different locations [DOHH—Dog-owning Household; HH—Household].

Human Total Dogs Dogs per % % Dogs

HH % Dog per Dogs per
Area/City Name Density (Esti- 1000 Female Uncon-
Sample DOHH HH DOHH
(Per km2 ) mated) Human Dogs fined
Quezon City 18,223 3500 648,747 220.95 54.91 0.95 1.71 44.2 15
Cebu City 13,696 1603 135,548 176.80 46.10 0.82 1.78 46.6 43.3
Lapu Lapu City 6331 1121 73,146 179.20 43.26 0.81 1.76 43.8 53.7
Urban
14,601 6224 857,441 208.57 50.55 0.91 1.73 44.5 29.3
Philippines
Lingayen town 1560 1113 29,377 284.40 63.16 1.22 1.90 48.1 57.6
Zamboanga town 2321 1241 86,787 235.60 39.40 0.85 2.20 42.6 52.2
Semi Urban Philippines 2124 2354 116,164 213.76 50.64 0.92 2.00 44.0 54.7
Cebu Rural 662 386 31,715 203.53 57.0 1.05 1.84 39.5 78.5
Zamboanga
888 1000 116,246 275.70 48.50 1.19 2.40 41.6 52.85
Rural
Rural
813 1386 147,961 256.23 50.87 1.15 2.21 41.2 60.0
Philippines
Cabilao Island 577 190 676 152.75 36.3 0.59 1.64 33.6 88.5
Malapascua
3266 130 854 166.56 29.2 0.59 2.03 50.6 83.1
Island
Pitogo Island 426 380 4066 174.07 48.2 0.86 1.78 43.5 81.7
Animals 2021, 11, x 6 of 18
Three Islands 514 700 5595 170.03 41.4 0.76 1.78 42.4 84.5

Figure
Figure 2. Arc
2. Arc GIS mapGISofmap of household
household survey
survey locations locations
in the in the
Philippines; Philippines;
colour colour
coded for four coded for four
different
differentcategories.
categories.

2.3. Ethics
The data collection was launched to generate baseline data for the anti-rabies
vaccination programs in the Philippines. Verbal consent was collected from each survey
participant. For consistency and accuracy in delivering the consent text, the surveyor read
a pre-written text explaining the reason they were asked to participate, the scope of the
Animals 2022, 12, 105 7 of 17

2.3. Ethics
The data collection was launched to generate baseline data for the anti-rabies vaccina-
tion programs in the Philippines. Verbal consent was collected from each survey participant.
For consistency and accuracy in delivering the consent text, the surveyor read a pre-written
text explaining the reason they were asked to participate, the scope of the questionnaire
and confirming that no personal information identifying any individual would be collected
during the interview. Participants were informed that they can withdraw their consent at
Animals 2021, 11, x
any point during and after the interview and that they can skip questions they do not7wish
of 18
to answer. If participants did not agree to participate, the surveyor would record a “no”
and the questionnaire automatically ended.

3.3.Results
Results
3.1.
3.1.Dog
DogDemographics
Demographicsand
andDog
DogOwnership
Ownership
Household
Householddog dogownership
ownershiprates
ratesacross
acrossall
allstudy
studyareas
areaswere
weregenerally
generallyhigh,
high,varying
varying
between
betweenaalow lowof of29.2%
29.2%ofofhouseholds
householdsowning
owningdogsdogsononMalapascua
MalapascuaIsland
Islandtotoaahigh
highofof
63.16% in Lingayen town. The 10,664 households surveyed across all locations
63.16% in Lingayen town. The 10,664 households surveyed across all locations owned owned
9916
9916dogs.
dogs.The
Theaverage
averagenumber
numberof of
dogs perper
dogs dogdog
owning household
owning (DOHH)
household (DOHH)was over one
was over
in all categories of locations (Figure 3). There are an average 0.89 dogs per household
one in all categories of locations (Figure 3). There are an average 0.89 dogs per household (HH)
across
(HH) the Philippines.
across There wasThere
the Philippines. a slight preference
was a slightfor male dogs,for
preference butmale
this preference
dogs, but was
this
not significant (Table 1).
preference was not significant (Table 1).

2.5 60%

Percentage of households owning dogs

50%
2
Number of dogs

40%
1.5
30%
1
20%

0.5
10%

0 0%
Rural Philippines Semi-Urban Urban Philippines Small Islands
Philippines

% Dog owning HH Dogs per DOHH

Figure3.3.Dogs
Figure Dogsper
perdog
dogowning
owninghousehold
household(DOHH)
(DOHH)in
indifferent
differentcategories
categoriesofofhuman
humansettlements
settlements
(Rural, Semi-Urban, Urban and Islands).
(Rural, Semi-Urban, Urban and Islands).

Table
In 1.Table
Number of households
1, estimated surveyed, dog
dog population population
for each estimates,
surveyed dogs
location percalculated
was 1000 humans,
by
percentage of dog owning households, average number of dogs per household,
extrapolating dogs per household number to total households of surveyed location. A dogs per dog
owning household,
Microsoft percentage
Access database of female dogs in the population and percentage of dogs allowed to
(https://www.microsoft.com/en-ww/microsoft-365/access,
roam freely for some or all of the day in different locations. [DOHH—Dog-owning Household;
accessed on 27 December 2021) generated average dogs per household for the location from
HH—Household].
number of dogs counted during the survey with reference to total households surveyed for
the location.
Human Density HH Total Dogs Dogs per Dog per Dogs per % Female % Dogs
Area/City Name % DOHH
(Per km2) Sample (Estimated) 1000 Human HH DOHH Dogs Unconfined
Quezon City 18,223 3.2. Sterilisation
3500 and
648,747 Vaccination
220.95 Status 54.91 0.95 1.71 44.2 15
Cebu City 13,696 Vaccination
1603 levels varied
135,548 176.80between46.10
locations (Figure
0.82 4). There
1.78 were no clear reasons
46.6 43.3
Lapu Lapu City 6331 identified
1121 why73,146 179.20of dogs vaccinated
the percentage 43.26 0.81
differed. 1.76 43.8 53.7
Urban
14,601 6224 857,441 208.57 50.55 0.91 1.73 44.5 29.3
Philippines
Lingayen town 1560 1113 29,377 284.40 63.16 1.22 1.90 48.1 57.6
Zamboanga town 2321 1241 86,787 235.60 39.40 0.85 2.20 42.6 52.2
Semi Urban
2124 2354 116,164 213.76 50.64 0.92 2.00 44.0 54.7
Philippines
Cebu Rural 662 386 31,715 203.53 57.0 1.05 1.84 39.5 78.5
 Access
Access database
database (https://www.microsoft.com/en-ww/microsoft-365/access,
(https://www.microsoft.com/en-ww/microsoft-365/access, accessed
accessed onon 27
27
December
December 2021) generated average dogs per household for the location from number of dogs
2021) generated average dogs per household for the location from number of dogs
counted
counted during
during the
the survey
survey with
with reference
reference to
to total
total households
households surveyed
surveyed for
for the
the location.
location.

3.2.
3.2. Sterilisation
Sterilisation and
and Vaccination
Vaccination Status
Status
Animals 2022, 12, 105 8 of 17
Vaccination
Vaccination levels varied between locations
levels varied between locations (Figure
(Figure 4).
4). There
There were
were no
no clear
clear reasons
reasons
identified
identified why
why the
the percentage
percentage of
of dogs
dogs vaccinated
vaccinated differed.
differed.

Cebu
Cebu urban
urban 52
52
Cebu
Cebu rural
rural 35
35
Lapu
Lapu Lapu 36

locations
Lapu 36

Surveyedlocations
Zamboanga
Zamboanga urban
urban 47.6
47.6
Surveyed Zamboanga
Zamboanga rural
rural 36.6
36.6
Lingayen
Lingayen 40.8
40.8
Pitogo
Pitogo 61.3
61.3
Malapascua
Malapascua 23.4
23.4
Cabilao Island
Cabilao Island 50.4
50.4
0.0
0.0 10.0
10.0 20.0
20.0 30.0
30.0 40.0
40.0 50.0
50.0 60.0
60.0 70.0
70.0
Vaccination
Vaccination Percentage
Percentage

Figure
Figure4.4.
Figure Percentages
4.Percentages of
Percentagesof vaccinated
ofvaccinated dogs
vaccinateddogs in
dogsin each
ineach surveyed
eachsurveyed location.
surveyedlocation.
location.

The
Thepercentage
The percentageof
percentage ofdogs
of dogsthat
dogs thatwere
that weresterilized
were sterilizedas
sterilized asaaaproportion
as proportionof
proportion oftheir
of theirsex
their sexisis
sex isreported
reportedin
reported in
in
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Higher
Higher proportions
proportions of
ofmale
maledogs
dogs were
were sterilized
sterilizedcompared
compared to
tofemale
female
Figure 5. Higher proportions of male dogs were sterilized compared to female dogs. dogs.
dogs.

35
35
30
30
25
25
Percentage
Percentage

20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0

%
% Sterilized
Sterilized Female
Female dogs
dogs %
% Sterilized
Sterilized Male
Male dogs
dogs

Figure
Figure5.5. Percentage
5. Percentage of
Percentage of male
of male and
male and female
andfemale dogs
femaledogs sterilized
dogssterilized by
sterilizedby location.
bylocation. Note:
location. Note: male
Note: male dogs
male dogs were
dogs were not
were not
not
Figure
recorded in Quezon City.
recorded in Quezon City.
recorded in Quezon City.

Across all locations and urbanization levels, dog owners were overwhelmingly willing
to have their dogs vaccinated (Table 2). However, around a quarter to a third of owners
in urban Quezon City (75.6%) and the islands Cabilao (67.9%) and Pitogo (79.4%) were
unwilling to have their dogs vaccinated. The level of willingness to have dogs sterilized
varied from around 10% to over 90%. It was not clear why there were such large differences
in owner attitudes towards dog sterilisation from one location to another.
Animals 2022, 12, 105 9 of 17

Table 2. Willingness of dog owners to vaccinate and sterilize their pet dogs.

Anti-Rabies % Owner % Owner % Owner

City/Town/Area Vaccination Willing to Willing to Willing to
Name Status (% Vaccinate Their Sterilize Their Sterilize Their
Coverage) Dog Female Dogs Male Dogs
Urban Philippines
Quezon City 73.4 75.6 10.4 12.8
Cebu City 52 96.8 40.6 48.1
Lapu Lapu 36.0 96.8 59.0 65.9
Semi Urban Philippines
Lingayen 40.8 99.1 18.4 31.5
Zamboanga 47.6 98.7 31.3 34.6
Rural Philippines
Cebu Rural 35 91.5 63.2 60.7
Zamboanga Rural 36.6 96 6.6 12.8
Islands
Cabilao 50.4 67.9 64.5 86.3
Malapascua 23.4 100 94.1 93.3
Pitogo 61.3 79.4 71.4 74.7

3.3. Dog Population by Human Density and Type of Human Settlement

There was some decrease in relative dog populations as one moves from rural to urban
locations, but the island locations had the lowest relative dog populations, even though
human density on the islands was low to medium (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Dogs per 1000 humans based on the level of the urbanisation of the human settlement.

Locations combined by the settlement type provide a range of dog densities per
1000 humans (Figure 6). We found 256.2 dogs (n = 1386, CI 95%, 249.6–262.4) per 1000 hu-
mans in rural areas, 213.8 dogs (n = 2354, CI 95%, 208.7–219.4) per 1000 humans in semi-
urban areas, 208.6 dogs (n = 6224, CI 95%, 203.8–214.2) per 1000 humans in urban areas and
170 dogs (n = 700, CI 95%, 163.7–176.3) per 1000 humans in small islands of the Philippines.
This indicates that more privately owned dogs are kept per 1000 people in rural areas
compared to urban areas.

3.4. Dog Population and Human Density

Dog density (dogs per 1000 people) may vary with human density (humans per km2 ).
Table 3 examines this relationship. Of all ten locations we surveyed, human population
density data up to barangay level were only
2 available for the three locations we presented
Animals 2022, 12, 105 10 of 17

in Table 3. We observed fewer dogs per 1000 people as human density increased in each of
these three locations: Quezon City, Lingayen Town and Zamboanga rural area.

Table 3. Dogs per 1000 humans based on the density of the human population in Quezon City,
Lingayen town and Zamboanga rural Each location was divided into three density categories (low,
medium and high).

Human Density per km2 Dogs per 1000 Humans Density Level for the Location
Quezon City
Below 20,000 234 Low
20,001 to 50,000 223 Medium
Above 50,001 175 High
Lingayen Town
Below 1000 323 Low
1001 to 3000 320 Medium
Above 3001 242 High
Zamboanga Rural
Below 1000 302 Low
1001 to 10,000 282 Medium
Above 10,000 242 High

Across our sample of 10,664 households (2086 rural and 8578 urban) we counted
2076 (95% CI: 1987–2165) and 7840 (95% CI: 7666–8014) dogs in rural and urban samples
respectively. Extrapolated for the total human population and number of households
present in the sample regions, as reported by the World Bank [21], we calculate an estimated
average dog density of 221.1 (rural) and 209.2 (urban) dogs per 1000 people. Using the
World Bank’s total human population figure (divided into rural and urban totals) across
the Philippines as a whole [21], we calculate a rough estimate of 23,295,301 (95% CI,
22,515,832–24,074,770) dogs across the country, following from our rural and urban dog
density estimations.

3.5. Level of Confinement in Different Types of Human Settlements

The level of confinement differed significantly between survey locations (X-squared = 1999,
df = 9, p-Value < 0.001) and between different settlement types (urban, semi-urban, rural
and island: X-squared = 1256.5, df = 3, p-Value < 0.001), appearing to increase with the
degree of urbanisation (Figure 7). A chi-squared pairwise comparison (with Bonferroni
p-Value correction) of the four grouped settlement categories reveals significant differences
in confinement proportions between all settlement categories (p < 0.001 for all pairwise com-
parisons) with the exception of the semi-urban and rural category comparison (p = 0.0533).
This supports the hypothesis of increasing confinement practices with increasing degree
of urbanisation.

3.6. Knowledge Attitude and Practice (KAP) Survey Finding from Quezon City
3.6.1. Human Demographics
In Quezon City, 1741 households were interviewed using a detailed KAP questionnaire
prepared in Epicollect5. The sample consisted of 1026 (63.6%) female and 587 (36.4%) male
interviewees. Of these, 938 (58.2%) came from dog owning households and 675 (41.8%)
from non-dog owning households. Of the 936 dog owning households, 651 (69.6%) owned
one dog, 187 (20%) owned two dogs, 61 (6.5%) owned three dogs, 18 (1.9%) owned four
dogs, 11 (1.2%) owned five dogs and 14 (1.5%) owned six or more dogs. Over 90% of
interviewees (865) were the main caretaker for the dog(s). The main reasons for owning a
dog were Pet/Companionship (49.1%, 645) and protection of the property/crops (49.0%,
645). Another 1.8% (23) said that they owned dogs to breed, and one household (0.1%) had
a dog for food/to be eaten. Most of the homes had a fenced-in yard (63.4%).
Animals 2022, 12, 105 11 of 17
Animals 2021, 11, x 11 of 18

100
88.5
83.1 81.7
78.5
80

Dogs permitted to roam free (%)

57.6
60 53.7 52.2 52.9
43.3
40

20 13.2

Pitogo
Cebu City

Zamboanga

Cebu Rural
Quezon City

Zamboanga Rural

Malapascua
Lapu Lapu

Lingayen

Cabilao Island
Urban Semi-urban Rural Island

Figure 7. Percentage of dogs permitted to roam free in each survey location.

Figure 7. Percentage of dogs permitted to roam free in each survey location.
3.6. Knowledge
3.6.2. Attitude
Rabies and Dog andBites
Practice (KAP) Survey Finding from Quezon City
3.6.1. Human Demographics
Regarding symptoms of rabies in dogs, 96.4% (1552) reported that they have heard
In Quezon City, 1741 households were interviewed using a detailed KAP
about rabies. When asked “Do you think it is possible for you or your family to get
questionnaire prepared in Epicollect5. The sample consisted of 1026 (63.6%) female and
rabies?” 82.7% (1332) said yes and 8.8% (142) and 8.5% (136) either said no or did not know,
587 (36.4%) male interviewees. Of these, 938 (58.2%) came from dog owning households
respectively.
and 675 (41.8%)When asked ifowning
from non-dog the interviewee
households.knew
Of thehow rabies
936 dog in dogs
owning could be prevented,
households,
60% (1259)owned
651 (69.6%) knew onethatdog,
dogs 187should be vaccinated
(20%) owned two dogs,annually against
61 (6.5%) owned rabies
three and
dogs, 18 another 10%
(201)
(1.9%)knew
ownedthat
fourdogs
dogs,should
11 (1.2%)get an injection
owned five dogs but did
and 14 not know
(1.5%) owned what the injection
six or more dogs. would be.
AOver 90%proportion
small of interviewees
(8%,(865)
179)were the main
thought caretaker
that for the dog(s).
impounding The main
dogs would bereasons
the best method to
for owning
prevent a dog
rabies were Pet/Companionship (49.1%, 645) and protection of the
in dogs.
property/crops (49.0%, 645). Another 1.8% (23) said that they owned dogs to breed, and
one household (0.1%) had a dog for food/to be eaten. Most of the homes had a fenced-in
3.6.3. Dog Demographics
yard (63.4%).
Dogs were acquired in several ways (Table 4). The most common way of adding a
dog
3.6.2.to a household
Rabies was by receiving it from someone (65.9%, 880) followed by being born
and Dog Bites
in theRegarding
household (11.8%,of158).
symptoms rabiesTherefore, most
in dogs, 96.4% owners
(1552) acquired
reported their
that they havedogs by “accident”.
heard
aboutthan
Less rabies. Whenpercent
twenty asked “Do youadopted
either think it is
orpossible
bought for youdog
their or your family to Puppies
intentionally. get born at
rabies?” 82.7% (1332) said yes and 8.8% (142) and 8.5% (136) either said no or did
the owner’s home were given mainly as gift to family and friends (43.6%) and only 15.6% not
know, respectively. When asked if the interviewee knew how rabies in dogs could be
were sold (Table 5).
prevented, 60% (1259) knew that dogs should be vaccinated annually against rabies and
another 10% (201) knew that dogs should get an injection but did not know what the
Table 4. Number
injection and
would be. percentage
A small of dog’s
proportion (8%,acquisition by that
179) thought pet owners in Quezon
impounding City.
dogs would
be the best method to prevent rabies in dogs.
Where Did You Get This Dog from? Number Percentage Source Category Number Percentage
3.6.3. this
Adopted from the street outside DogBarangay
Demographics 6 0.4
Dogs were acquired in several ways (Table 4). The most common way of adding a
Adopted from the street in this Barangay 32 2.4
dog to a household was by receiving it from someone (65.9%, 880) followed by being born
Adopted from ainshelter 1
the household (11.8%, 158). Therefore, most0.1 Adopted
owners acquired 53
their dogs by “accident”. 4.0
Less than twenty percent
Adopted from another person outside this Barangay either adopted
6 or bought
0.4 their dog intentionally. Puppies born
at the owner’s home were given mainly as gift to family and friends (43.6%) and only
Adopted from another person in this
15.6% wereBarangay
sold (Table 5). 8 0.6
Born to
Born in this household 158 11.8 158 11.8
household
Bought by the owner/household outside this Barangay 137 10.3
Bought 230 17.2
Bought by the owner/household within this Barangay 93 7.0
Given to the owner/household 880 65.9 Gifted 880 65.9
Other 14 1.0 Other 14 1.0
TOTAL 1335 -
Animals 2022, 12, 105 12 of 17

Table 5. Practices followed by pet owners for puppies born at their home in Quezon City.

What of the Following Do You Usually Do

with Puppies?
Number Percentage Fate Category Number Percentage
Note That Multiple Responses Can Be Given
per Respondent
Give them away as gifts to friends/family 115 43.6 Gifts 115 43.6
Keep puppies in my home 51 19.3 Keep 51 19.3
Puppies died 57 21.6 Died 57 21.6
Sell to other dog owners outside my Barangay 20 7.6
Sale 41 15.6
Sell to other dog owners in my Barangay 21 8.0
TOTAL 264 - - - -

Animals 2021, 11, x

About one third of the 578 female dogs (33.2%, 192) in the sample 13 of 18
had at least one
litter in their life (Table 6). It is unclear, however, how many puppies survived from each
litter and grew into adult dogs. Puppies that were born to bought female dogs appear to be
moreAbout
likely
onetothird
be also
of thesold compared
578 female to puppies
dogs (33.2%, 192) inborn to other
the sample had female dogs (Figure 8).
at least one
litter in their life (Table 6). It is unclear, however, how many puppies survived from each
litter and
Table 6. Ifgrew into adult
a female dogdogs. Puppies
had litter thatlife
in her were born on
based to bought female
the source ofdogs appear to
acquisition in Quezon City.
be more likely to be also sold compared to puppies born to other female dogs (Figure 8).
Has She Ever Had Puppies?
Table 6. If Source
a female dog had litter in her life based on the source of acquisition in Quezon City.
Yes No % Yes
Has She Ever Had Puppies?
Source
Adopted 10 11 47.6
Yes No % Yes
BornAdopted
to household 10 20 11 46 47.6 30.3
Bought
Born to household 20 32 46 84 30.3 27.6
Gifted
Bought 32 129 84 237 27.6 35.2
Gifted
Other 129 1 237 2 35.2 -
Other
TOTAL 1 192 2 380 - 33.6
TOTAL 192 380 33.6
ppy y q
100

Died
Keep
80

Gifts
Percentage of Responses

Sale
60
40
20
0

Adopted Born Bought Gifted

Source of Mother

Figure
Figure 8.8. Puppy
Puppy fate fate by mother
by mother acquisition
acquisition source for source for Quezon City.
Quezon City.

3.7. Application
3.7. Application toNational
to the the National Rabies Vaccination
Rabies Vaccination Program. Program
After
After thethe survey
survey results
results wereinternally
were shared shared internally
with the localwith the local
government government veterinary
veterinary
offices, a joint vaccination program was initiated in Cebu City and District-2 of Quezon
offices, a joint vaccination program was initiated in Cebu City and District-2 of Quezon City
City in 2018 in coordination with the Bureau of Animal Industry and DARFO-7. In earlier
in 2018 in coordination with the Bureau of Animal Industry and DARFO-7. In earlier rabies
rabies vaccination programs (2013–2017), an average of 25,585 and 20,198 dogs were
vaccination programs
vaccinated annually in Cebu(2013–2017),
City and Quezon an City,
average of 25,585
respectively. andthe
In 2018, 20,198 dogs were vaccinated
vaccination
annually
program used in the
Cebu City
survey dataand Quezon
to plan City, (with
and resource respectively. In 2018,
ample vaccination thea vaccination
doses) new program
rabies the
used vaccination
surveydrivedata(Figure 9). Inand
to plan Cebu City, the new
resource (withvaccination drive lasted from
ample vaccination doses) a new rabies
February 2018drive
vaccination to end(Figure
of August
9). 2018; whereas
In Cebu City,in the
Quezon
newCity the vaccination
vaccination drivedrive
lasted from February
started later towards the beginning of August 2018 and continued until the first week of
2018 to end of August 2018; whereas in Quezon City the vaccination
December 2018. As a result, numbers of rabies cases reported during 2018 were high since
drive started later
there was no vaccination effort during the first half of the year, yet fewer numbers of cases
observed in both places during 2019 indicate the efficacy of the program.
Animals 2022, 12, 105 13 of 17

towards the beginning of August 2018 and continued until the first week of December 2018.
As a result, numbers of rabies cases reported during 2018 were high since there was no
Animals 2021, 11, x 14 of in
vaccination effort during the first half of the year, yet fewer numbers of cases observed 18
both places during 2019 indicate the efficacy of the program.

Number of dogs vaccinated in Cebu City

Number of dogs vaccinated in Distrci-2, Quezon City
NUMBER OF DOGS RECIVED ANT-RABIES VACCINE

98,307
87,392
34,031
28,605

27,982
26,683
26,354

22,057
Not Availabe

18,389
16,877

7,738

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

YEAR OF VACCINATION

Figure9.
Figure 9. Number
Number of
of dogs
dogs vaccinated
vaccinatedbetween
between2013
2013to
to2018
2018in
inCebu
CebuCity
Cityand
andQuezon
QuezonCity.
City.

Inboth
In bothcities,
cities,
thethe rabies
rabies incidence
incidence in animals
in animals and humans
and humans has declined
has declined (Figure
(Figures 10 10
and 11).
and2019,
For 11). For
the 2019, the cities zero
cities reported reported
caseszero casesinofhumans.
of rabies rabies inIfhumans. If rabies vaccination
rabies vaccination programs
programstocontinue
continue reach the to2018
reachnumbers,
the 2018 numbers, rabies
rabies cases cases
should should to
continue continue
decreaseto decrease in
in animals
animals
and human andrabies
human rabies
cases casesremain
should shouldatremain
zero. at zero.

Number of animal rabies cases reported Number of human rabies cases reported

30
Number of reported rabies cases

25
25 22 23
20 17
16
15 13
10 8
5 2 2 2
1 1 1 0
0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year of reporting

Figure 10. Reported rabies cases in animals and humans in Quezon City, pre- and post-2018
Figure 10. Reported
vaccination drive. rabies cases in animals and humans in Quezon City, pre- and post-2018 vaccina-
tion drive.
Animals 2022, 12, 105 14 of 17

Figure 11. Reported rabies cases in animals and humans in Cebu City, pre- and post-2018 vaccina-
tion drive.

4. Discussion
Our household surveys across all the locations found that 50% of households own one
or more dogs. This was independent of the location’s urbanisation status (rural, semi-urban,
or urban). Only on small, isolated islands did we find a lower ownership rate of approxi-
mately 40% (Table 1). This suggests that the size of the owned dog population in an area of
the Philippines is dependent on the number of dogs owned per dog owning household.
This statistic differed by urbanization status: highest in rural areas (2.21 dogs/DOHH) and
lowest in urban areas (1.73 dogs/DOHH). Dog owners were found to possess a marginal
bias to owning male dogs in preference to female. Confinement practices varied dramati-
cally with level of urbanisation, with the percentage
4
of dog owners willing to allow their
dogs to roam the street increasing with decreasing urbanization: 29.3% in urban areas,
54.7% in semi-urban, 60% in rural and 84.5% on the small islands. Often these free roaming
owned dogs are mistaken for un-owned street dogs during the planning of a large-scale
mass vaccination programs and targeted for catching. However, door to door vaccina-
tion programs may simultaneously provide a simpler and more cost-effective means to
vaccinate such a population and help educate owners concerning the necessity of annual
vaccination. Dog owning data also have the potential to inform projected vaccination goals
in planning large scale mass vaccination programs, using dog to household ratios (Table 1)
combined with the total household numbers available from human census data.
We have also presented data in the form of dogs per 1000 humans for all types of
settlements, which may be extrapolated to any area of the Philippines. Further, based on the
assumption of sample representativeness to the country as a whole, we used urban and rural
dogs per 1000 humans to estimate the owned dog population of the Philippines country.
Such total country estimates are necessary for central government agency plans for large
scale vaccination programs, especially with respect to securing sufficient vaccine numbers.
While more data from other parts of the Philippines are needed to validate our estimate, in
the meantime, it serves as a guide for other Asian and African countries to establish similar
ratios for each region and, thus, plan effective large scale vaccination programs.
The sterilization rate was found to be very low in all surveyed locations; a compara-
tively higher sterilisation rate was found in male dogs. Owners’ willingness for male dog
sterilisation was also found to be higher suggesting that dog owners prefer intact female
dogs with the potential to breed. In Quezon City, when we used the longer version of our
Animals 2022, 12, 105 15 of 17

questionnaire, we found that the gifting of dogs is a common cultural practice: 65.9% of
dogs were acquired as gifts (Table 4) and upon asking about the fate of newborn puppies,
43.6% of dog owners gave them away as gifts (Table 5). On the other hand, we found a
high willingness for vaccinating owned dogs against rabies in all the surveyed locations.
This is encouraging for the prospect of potential large scale rabies vaccination programs.
In Quezon City, we found that people are keeping dogs either as a companion (49%)
or as a guard (49%), with the majority (69.6%) keeping only a single dog. Almost all the
interviewed households (96.4%) knew about rabies disease, but only 60% of them knew
about the necessity of annual re-vaccination. This shows that there is broad scope for and
benefit in an awareness and education program alongside the annual vaccination program.
There has been a shift in rabies and humane dog population management in the
past decade. Successful programs now demand more evidence of impact beyond just
the number of vaccine doses administered and the number of reported rabies cases in
animals [22]. There are long-standing and successful anti-rabies programs in other parts of
the world that did not start by determining dog populations. However, in the Philippines,
South Asia and Africa, the persistence of rabies begs for a re-evaluation of the approaches
used to eliminate the virus.
Despite the lingering rabies caseload in the Philippines, the government is committed
to eradicating the virus with mass-dog-vaccination programs. The locations in this study
were chosen specifically because they were places where local veterinary offices decided
their programs needed to be more evidence-based and sought support from Humane
Society International. The results of the surveys in this report indicate that there are better
approaches to estimating the dog population than the 1 dog per 10 people rule commonly
used by municipalities in the Philippines.
This study shows that standard estimation of the dog population (using 1 dog per
10 people) undercounts local dog populations by 2–3-fold. As a result, dog vaccination
programs carried out in the past by Philippines municipalities never achieved a 70%
coverage of dogs in the community. A revised human-dog ratio to estimate local dog
populations would help secure higher (and more effective) coverage of rabies vaccination.
A single parenteral dog rabies-mass vaccination campaign achieving coverage of at least
70% appears to be sufficient to interrupt rabies transmission to humans for up to 6 years [23].
In addition to evidence-based planning, Quezon City and Cebu City used a specifically
designed mobile phone application for household surveys and to track their vaccination
program. The increased data accuracy and simplified data compilation provide additional
information that can be used for monitoring and evaluation purposes.

5. Conclusions
Dogs are closely associated with humans across the world. Based on this study, we
conclude that using a dog per 1000 humans metric would be a helpful approach when
determining the needs of community rabies vaccination programs. The metric is easy to
understand and easy to use. Furthermore, a breakdown into dog—human ratio for rural,
semi-urban, urban and small islands has potential to aid the planning of mass vaccination
and dog sterilisation programs across the Philippines. The existence of human rabies cases
in Quezon City despite people having knowledge of rabies disease and knowing the risk
of rabies transmission demand a better rabies vaccination approach. Implementing the
baseline dog surveys in Cebu City and Quezon City ultimately led to plans for a broader
vaccination campaign in both urban centers and, due to a correction in the number of
vaccines doses needed, a 3- to 4-fold increase in dog vaccination coverage. Nationally, such
a survey-driven vaccination program could improve rabies elimination efforts and result in
a greater likelihood that the Philippines could achieve rabies-free status by 2030.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.C.; Methodology, A.C. and T.K; Validation, A.C.; Formal
analysis, K.J.A., T.K., G.B. and A.C.; Investigation, A.C., K.J.A. and T.K; Data curation, A.C., K.J.A., G.B.
and T.K.; Writing—original draft preparation, A.C.; Writing—review and editing, G.B., T.K., M.G.L.
and D.J.; Visualization, A.C. and T.K.; Supervision, A.C., K.J.A. and T.K.; Project administration,
Animals 2022, 12, 105 16 of 17

K.J.A., A.C. and T.K.; Funding acquisition, None. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Please refer to several communications made for this, Mi-
haela Cotul (3 August 2021), provided local laws and full explanation.An Exemption letter provided
by Delenia Mclver, General Counsel HSI to Mihaela Cotul on 12 August 2021.
Informed Consent Statement: The data collection was launched to generate baseline data for the
anti-rabies vaccination programs in the Philippines. Verbal consent was collected from each survey
participant. For consistency and accuracy in delivering the consent text, the surveyor read a pre-
written text explaining the reason they were asked to participate, the scope of the questionnaire and
confirming that no personal information identifying any individual would be collected during the
interview. Participants were informed that they can withdraw their consent at any point during and
after the interview and that they can skip questions they do not wish to answer. If participants did
not agree to participate, the surveyor would record a “no” and the questionnaire automatically ended.
Getting written consent is not practically possible as people do not sign any papers in developing
countries to avoid any possible fraud with them. Rather better introduction, explanation of purpose
of the data collection and oral consent is realistic and acceptable way. All the participants were also
given a choice to quit the participation at any point during the questionnaire interview taken.
Data Availability Statement: All the data collected during the study are stored in Microsoft Access
Database in raw form and in Microsoft Excel in calculated form with the first author (Amit Chaudhari)
and those can be shared in calculated or raw forms if needed for validation. Data collected from
Quezon City through Epicollect5 are also stored on a Epicollect5 online project account.
Acknowledgments: Department of Agriculture (DA)—Bureau of Animal Industry Philippines, DA
Regional Field Units, Quezon City Veterinary Department, Cebu City Veterinary Department, Zam-
boanga City Veterinary Department, Lingayen City Veterinary Department, Lapu-Lapu City Veteri-
nary Department, Regional Field Veterinary Office (Region VII, Central Visayas), Provincial Veterinary
Office Bohol.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Majumder, S.S.; Paul, M.; Sau, S.; Bhadra, A. Denning habits of free-ranging dogs reveal preference for human proximity. Sci. Rep.
2016, 6, 32014. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Butler, J.R.A.; Bingham, J. Demography and dog-human relationships of the dog population in Zimbabwean communal lands.
Vet. Rec. 2000, 147, 442–446. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Morters, M.K.; McKinley, T.J.; Restif, O.; Conlan, A.J.K.; Cleaveland, S.; Hampson, K.; Whay, H.R.; Damriyasa, I.M.; Wood, J.L.N.
The demography of free-roaming dog populations and applications to disease and population control. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51,
1096–1106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Gsell, A.; Knobel, D.L.; Cleaveland, S.; Kazwala, R.R.; Vounatsou, P.; Zinsstag, J. Domestic dog demographic structure and
dynamics relevant to rabies control in urban areas in Africa: The case of Iringa, Tanzania. BMC Vet. Res. 2012, 8, 1–10. [CrossRef]
5. Windiyaningsih, C.; Wilde, H.; Meslin, F.X.; Suroso, T.; Widarso, H.S. The rabies epidemic on Flores Island, Indonesia (1998–2003).
J. Med. Assoc. Thail. 2004, 87, 1389–1393. [PubMed]
6. Brooks, R. Survey of the dog population of Zimbabwe and its levelof rabies vaccination. Vet. Rec. 1990, 127, 592–596. [PubMed]
7. Kitala, P.; McDermott, J.; Kyule, M.; Gathuma, J.; Perry, B.; Wandeler, A. Dog ecology and demography information to support
the planning of rabies control in Machakos District, Kenya. Acta Trop. 2001, 78, 217–230. [CrossRef]
8. Acosta-Jamett, G.; Cleaveland, S.; Cunningham, A.A.; Bronsvoort, B.M. Demography of domestic dogs in rural and urban areas
ofthe Coquimbo region of Chile and implications for disease transmission. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 94, 272–281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Canine Rabies Blueprint, Operational Activity. Chapter 5.4.1. What Are the Techniques Available to Estimate the Number of
Dogs? Available online: https://caninerabiesblueprint.org/5-4-1-What-techniques-are (accessed on 18 July 2021).
10. Hiby, L.R.; Reece, J.F.; Wright, R.; Jaisinghani, R.; Singh, B.; Hiby, E.F. A mark-resight survey method to estimate the roaming dog
population in three cities in Rajasthan, India. BMC Vet. Res. 2011, 7, 46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Hampson, K.; Coudeville, L.; Lembo, T.; Sambo, M.; Kieffer, A.; Attlan, M.; Barrat, J.; Blanton, J.D.; Briggs, D.J.; Cleaveland,
S.; et al. Correction: Estimating the Global Burden of Endemic Canine Rabies. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003786. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Animals 2022, 12, 105 17 of 17

12. Taylor, L.H.; Wallace, R.M.; Balaram, D.; Lindenmayer, J.M.; Eckery, D.C.; Mutonono-Watkiss, B.; Parravani, E.; Nel, L. The Role
of Dog Population Management in Rabies Elimination—A Review of Current Approaches and Future Opportunities. Front. Vet.
Sci. 2017, 4, 109. [CrossRef]
13. Tenzin, T.; Ahmed, R.; Debnath, N.C.; Ahmed, G.; Yamage, M. Free-Roaming Dog Population Estimation and Status of the
Dog Population Management and Rabies Control Program in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003784.
[CrossRef]
14. Rinzin, K.; Tenzin, T.; Robertson, I. Size and demography pattern of the domestic dog population in Bhutan: Implications for dog
population management and disease control. Prev. Vet. Med. 2016, 126, 39–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Patronek, G.J.; Rowan, A.N. Determining Dog and Cat Numbers and Population Dynamics. Anthrozoös 1995, 8, 199–205.
[CrossRef]
16. World Health Organization. WHO Expert Consultation on Rabies: Second Report; WHO Technical Report Series 982; World Health
Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
17. Undurraga, E.A.; Blanton, J.D.; Thumbi, S.; Mwatondo, A.; Muturi, M.; Wallace, R.M. Tool for Eliminating Dog-Mediated Human
Rabies through Mass Dog Vaccination Campaigns. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017, 23, 2114–2116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Davlin, S.L.; VonVille, H. Canine rabies vaccination and domestic dog population characteristics in the developing world: A
systematic review. Vaccine 2012, 30, 3492–3502. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Republic Act No. 9482 Anti-Rabies Act 2007 (Philippines). Available online: https://rabies.doh.gov.ph/images/PDF/IRR-
INSIDE-REV2_new.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2021).
20. Manual of Procedures. National Rabies Prevention and Control Program Philippines 2019. Page 16, Page 158. Available online:
https://doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/publications/Rabies%20Manual_MOP_2019%20nov28.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2021).
21. United Nations Population Division’s World Urbanization Prospects: 2018 Revision. The World Bank. Available online:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL?locations=PH (accessed on 18 July 2021).
22. Canine Rabies Blueprint, Operational Activity. Chapter 5.6. Evaluation. Available online: https://caninerabiesblueprint.org/5-6-
Evaluation (accessed on 21 July 2021).
23. Zinsstag, J.; Dürr, S.; Penny, M.; Mindekem, R.; Roth, F.; Gonzalez, S.M.; Naissengar, S.; Hattendorf, J. Transmission dynamics and
economics of rabies control in dogs and humans in an African city. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 14996–15001. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]