Effect of COVID-19 on Pet Food Bank Servicing: Quantifying Numbers of Clients Serviced in the Vancouver Downtown Eastside, British Columbia, Canada

Introduction

The current global pandemic (COVID-19) has had a disproportionate impact on underserved populations (1–3). The pandemic has for instance, increased the level of food insecurity experienced worldwide, which serves to widen the gap between different socio-demographic groups (4–7). Furthermore, in the pandemic context, social work has become increasingly harder to perform due to government restrictions reducing in-person services, coupled with a lack of funding (8). Food banks are included in the social services that have been impacted by the pandemic, and certain cities have made active efforts to enhance offerings to support their populations (9). A deeper look into how the current pandemic has impacted access to social services such as that of pet food banks is paramount to ensure appropriate support is still available to populations in need. At the same time, research showed an increase in the strength of human-animal bonds during the COVID-19 pandemic (10–12), which all points to the importance of providing social structural support so that pet ownership can remain an option to those who benefit.

Research has demonstrated that owning companion animals while experiencing homelessness can have a myriad of mental health benefits (13, 14), and can help prevent the performance of self-destructive behaviors such as drug and alcohol misuse (15, 16). Furthermore, pet ownership in times of difficulty has been specifically shown to increase resiliency in vulnerable populations (17). Most of the current available data on pet-owning populations, who are experiencing financial hardship, are either restricted to those experiencing homelessness (i.e., living on the streets or otherwise unhoused), or focus on public perception of those populations (13, 17–19). However, populations experiencing hardship not only include those that are experiencing homelessness, but also involve people living in low-income housing, experiencing general housing instability, or who are “couch surfing,” for example (20–22).

According to previous census data, the Downtown population of Vancouver, British Columbia (B.C.), Canada, comprises over 10% of the city's general population and is heavily marked by special challenges. For instance, 30% of the indicated downtown Vancouver population reports experiencing limitations in their day-to-day activities, often due to disabilities, and that proportion increases to over 50% when specifically looking at Indigenous or elderly populations. The area's population is composed in its majority of male-identified individuals, with female-identified people composing 47% of the population, as opposed to 51% in Vancouver, in general (23). Further, the age profile of residents of the Downtown area does not contain a large number of school-aged children, with those in their 30's making up a large proportion of the population (23). In terms of housing, the Downtown area contains a significantly larger proportion of apartment buildings than does the general city of Vancouver, with about 97% occupancy in the area being in apartment units as opposed to 61% occupancy of apartments in the city, in general. Further, only 3% of homes are semi-detached houses or row houses or duplexes. Last, 94% of homes in the area are composed of two bedrooms or less (23). An unknown proportion of people are experiencing housing challenges in downtown Vancouver, and over 25% of that population currently lives below the poverty line (24, 25). The Downtown area also presents a higher proportion of people living alone than that of the general city, at 31% as opposed to 18% for Vancouver. Specifically, the proportion of seniors who live alone in the area is high, sitting at 37% as opposed to 29% for Vancouver in general (23). The area within downtown Vancouver that houses and serves ~20,000 people with many experiencing financial hardships is generally regarded as the Downtown Eastside (DTES; Figure 1), which is ~4 km² and comprises the neighborhoods of Gastown, Chinatown, and Strathcona. A study in the area which focused on drug usage found that 26% of the population examined had an overdose or “life threatening event,” and that 3% passed away between October 2015 and January 2019 (26). Anecdotally, the prevalence of companion animals in the DTES of Vancouver is high, however metrics of that population are lacking.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Partial map of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, with the red line outlining the approximate area of the Vancouver Downtown Eastside (DTES). The portion of rentals that are subsidized, taken from 2016 census data, are color-coded as an example of financial challenges of the area. Source: OpenStreetMap; mountainmath.ca/census.

Research has demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate effect on populations in which opioid usage is high, causing an increase in depression, anxiety, loneliness, and frustration (27). To help address these challenges, government and non-profit organizations make several social support services available in the area (28–30), such as food banks, harm reduction and education centers, and emergency shelters. However, many community services were greatly reduced due to physical distancing requirements. For example, a safe injection site decreased its capacity by 75% resulting in only 6 available stalls (31).

During the pandemic, most veterinary services continued to operate but through virtual appointments and/or with only the animal admitted into the facility. The B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was deemed an essential service and thus was allowed to remain open, providing sheltering and veterinary services to Vancouver's pet population. The same was true for “Charlie's,” the pet food bank run by the BC SPCA in the DTES area. While at times the pet food bank had fewer available staff, the availability of pet food to the DTES residents throughout the pandemic was overall consistent (32).

We aimed to provide data on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on pet food servicing by analyzing past data records from a pet food bank offered by the BC SPCA, which operates in the DTES area (33). Our purpose was to examine services provided to the pet owning DTES population with the goal of characterizing it and to understand whether supportive servicing in the area has been consistent across time. We hypothesized that COVID-19 would affect the numbers of clients serviced. Furthermore, we suspected that the types of services needed (i.e., companion animal species needing services) may differ in a population that is disadvantaged, but not necessarily experiencing homelessness, compared to previously published literature on pet food banks.

Methods

Data Collection

We collected records from BC SPCA pet food bank “Charlie's” which operates every Thursday from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. at a designated location in Vancouver's DTES. The data contained information regarding how many people and how many companion animals were serviced each week of the food bank. Services provided (e.g., nail trims) were also counted in addition to food and litter distribution but were not included in our analysis due to a lack of record-keeping consistency throughout the years. Thus, we refer to “servicing” in this paper, but are only describing pet food and cat litter provision. We aimed to collect records from 2013 to 2020, however 2015 and 2016 records were not found and thus were not included in our analysis. Paper records for 2013 and 2014 were digitized and combined with 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 records into a central database. The University of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board approved all research activities (H20-03807).

Data Analysis

Data curation and analysis were conducted using RStudio Team, 2020 (34). The descriptive data were first analyzed through the calculation of the number of each species of companion animals serviced as a proportion of the total number of animals. Further, the median number of animals and people in attendance each week, as well as interquartile ranges were calculated; this was done as a median for all years, for each year individually, as well as for the combined data for each week of the month. The data were analyzed by conducting a Shapiro-Wilk test for each of the different species to check for normality, which determined that most of the data were normally distributed (all p < 0.05, except the quantity of dogs by event was at p = 0.058). A total of 12 Kruskal-Wallis one-way analyses of variance were conducted, comparing each group (humans, cats, dogs, rats, rabbits, and “other” animals) in turn by both the year, as well as the week of the month during which the food bank took place. For the comparisons that were statistically significant (p < 0.05), Dunn Test post-hoc analyses were conducted.

Results

Descriptive Data

The companion animal population serviced was comprised of mostly cats (72.5%), dogs (25.2%), rats (1.2%), rabbits (0.6%), and “other” animals (0.5%). The “other” category contained a vast array of animals such as birds, hamsters, guinea pigs, and chinchillas. Each week, a median of 100 people [interquartile range [IQR] = 44] were serviced by the pet food bank. Further, a median of 108 cats (IQR = 56), 37 dogs (IQR = 16), 1 rat (IQR = 2), 0 rabbits (IQR = 1), and 0 “other” animals (IQR = 1; Figure 2).

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Median number of clients per week for all years combined. Medians and IQRs are shown.

Yearly Trends

The number of clients and animals serviced was different across sampled years [humans: H(5) = 72.9, p < 0.05; cats: H(5) = 63.9, p < 0.05; dogs: H(5) = 28.3, p < 0.05; rats: H(5) = 15.6, p < 0.05; rabbits: H(5) = 13.9, p < 0.05; “other”: H(5) = 67.7, p < 0.05; Figure 3].

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Median (IQR) number of clients per week by year.

More people were serviced in 2013 (median = 121, IQR = 51, p < 0.05), 2014 (median = 115, IQR = 43, p < 0.05), 2017 (median = 95, IQR = 39, p < 0.05), 2018 (median = 91, IQR = 31.25, p < 0.05), and 2019 (median = 102, IQR = 28.5, p < 0.05) when compared to 2020 (median = 63, IQR = 30.5, p < 0.05).

The number of cats who received pet food provisions weekly was higher in 2013 (median = 128, IQR = 63, p < 0.05), 2014 (median = 122, IQR = 49, p < 0.05), 2017 (median = 104, IQR = 49, p < 0.05), 2018 (median = 103.5, IQR = 52.5, p < 0.05), and 2019 (median = 115, IQR = 34.5, p < 0.05) when compared to 2020 (median = 60, IQR = 34.5, p < 0.05).

The number of dogs, however, was only statistically significantly lower in 2020 (median = 27, IQR = 16, p < 0.05) than in 2019 (median = 43; IQR =9, p < 0.05). It was equivalent to that of 2013 (median = 31, IQR = 19, p < 0.05), 2014 (median = 36, IQR = 15, p < 0.05), 2017 (median = 36, IQR = 12, p < 0.05), and 2018 (median = 39, IQR = 9.25, p < 0.05; Figure 3).

The number of rats in 2020 (median = 0, IQR = 1, p < 0.05) was equivalent to that of 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2018 (medians = 1, IQRs = 2.5, 2, 3, 2, respectively, all p < 0.05). However, it was lower than that of 2019 (median = 2, IQR = 3.5, p < 0.05). No statistical difference was observed in rabbit numbers between 2020 (median = 0, IQR = 0, p < 0.05) and any other year (medians = 0, IQR's = 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0 for 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019 respectively, all p < 0.05; Figure 3).

The population of “other” animals was equivalent in 2013 (median = 1, IQR = 2, p < 0.05) and 2014 (median = 1, IQR = 2, p < 0.05). These were both higher than the populations observed in 2017 (median = 0, IQR = 0, p < 0.05), 2018 (median = 0, IQR = 0, p < 0.05), 2019 (median = 0, IQR = 1, p < 0.05), and 2020 (median = 0, IQR = 0, p < 0.05), which were equivalent to each other (Figure 3).

Weekly Trends

Human clients [H(4) = 55.9, p < 0.05], cats [H(4) = 51.7, p < 0.05], and dogs [H(4) = 26.8, p < 0.05] differed statistically significantly based on the week of the month. Rats [H(4) = 3.6, p = 0.47], rabbits [H(4) = 8.1, p = 0.09], and “other” animals [H(4) = 0.69, p = 0.95] did not differ based on the week (Figure 4).

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Median (IQR) number of clients per week by week of the month.

The number of human clients serviced in Week 4 (median = 73, IQR = 20.75, p < 0.05) was lower than that of Weeks 1 (median = 104, IQR = 35.25, p < 0.05), 2 (median = 115, IQR = 25, p < 0.05), and 3 (median = 110, IQR = 50, p < 0.05), but equivalent to that of Week 5 (median = 89, IQR = 25, p < 0.05). The number of cats during Week 4 of each month (median = 78, IQR = 27, p < 0.05) was once again lower than that of Weeks 1 (median = 114.5, IQR = 35.25, p < 0.05), 2 (median = 131, IQR = 40, p < 0.05), and 3 (median = 112, IQR = 72.5, p < 0.05), but equivalent to that of Week 5 (median = 109, IQR = 36, p < 0.05; Figure 4).

Further, the same pattern was observed for dogs. The number of dogs during Week 4 of each month (median = 35, IQR = 16, p < 0.05) was lower than that of Weeks 1 (median = 36, IQR =12, p < 0.05), 2 (median = 42, IQR = 17, p < 0.05), and 3 (median = 40, IQR = 15, p < 0.05), but equivalent to that of Week 5 (median = 35, IQR = 16, p < 0.05; Figure 4).

The number of rats in Weeks 1 (median = 1, IQR = 2, p < 0.05), 2 (median = 1, IQR = 2, p < 0.05), 3 (median = 1, IQR = 3, p < 0.05), 4 (median = 1, IQR = 3, p < 0.05), and 5 (median = 1, IQR = 3, p < 0.05) were found to be equivalent. The same was also found for rabbits (medians = 0; IQR's = 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, for Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively, all p < 0.05), and “other” animals (medians = 0; IQR's = 1; p < 0.05 for all weeks; Figure 4).

Discussion

General Population

As a very rough estimate, the data showed that ~0.5% of the whole population of the DTES was serviced weekly through the pet food bank. As we suspected, the companion animal species served by the pet food bank in our target community, comprised of people who are experiencing hardship, but may be housed or partially housed, differed from the previous literature. We found that the companion animal composition in the DTES food bank service clientele was predominantly made up of cats. This is a surprising finding in this context, as previous research identified that the majority of companion animals owned by those experiencing homelessness tend to be dogs and not cats (13, 18, 35). The discrepancy may be explained by the ease of which dogs, as opposed to cats, can be maintained outdoors without a confined space (36, 37). The Charlie's food bank, however, not only services those who are experiencing homelessness, but also clients who live in low-income housing and have enclosed living quarters, which may explain this finding. The prevalence of small apartment units in the Downtown area (23) also helps explain the high proportion of cats owned, since it may be easier to keep cats in smaller spaces than dogs (36, 37). Our data highlight the need for researchers to evaluate programs serving a wider population to not make incorrect inferences about pet ownership.

Another result that warrants reflection is the size of the rat population represented, which is larger than that seen in the literature. The Animals Medicine Australia report (2019) (38) showed that 0.6% of companion animals owned were either mice or rats. In contrast, in our sample, we found that 1% of the companion animals were rats alone, and mice were a part of the “other” category. However, our data are consistent with that of the BC SPCA's shelter intake. A 5-year analysis of the BC SPCA animal population that services all of BC, revealed that rats make up a substantial proportion of admitted animals (39).

COVID-19 Effects

The decrease in the number of clients serviced in 2020 was not unexpected and we interpret it as being due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. What is surprising, however, is the fact that the number of dogs, but not other pet species, present at the food bank each week was not statistically significantly different from that of the prior year. This could be explained in different ways. First, housing differences could account for the maintenance in dog numbers. As previously mentioned, owning dogs while living outdoors may generally be an easier experience than owning a cat outdoors (13, 18, 35–37). It could be the case that dog owners, who attend the food bank, are living outdoors more often than cat owners. This would mean that they would not have the option to stay at home despite the “stay at home orders,” and so would continue attending the food bank each week. Second, a possible explanation for this finding could be related to the price differences in owning a dog compared to a cat. Feeding prices for dogs generally tend to be higher than that for cats (40–42). This might then mean that dog owners are more dependent on the food bank and thus resistant to the public health recommendations to stay at home.

Weekly Trends

We observed a decrease in the number of people as well as companion animals serviced at the food bank every fourth week of the month. That week (usually the last of the month) coincides with the time during which income assistance is distributed to many residents of the area (43, 44). This results in an increase in personal resource availability for clients, which in turn can decrease their need for assistance in pet food acquisition. This effect has been documented, for instance, in food purchasing practices, with people utilizing food stamps and increasing their caloric intake right after income supplementation checks are received (45–47).

The decrease in attendance at the pet food bank every fourth week of the month may also bring to light issues regarding access to care. It is possible that clients are prioritizing other needed purchases during that week and are unable to come for pet food assistance. Previous research identified that income assistance payments in the DTES population that struggles with drug addiction coincides with drug-related harms, albeit the phenomenon is highly complex and nuanced (26, 26, 48). With that in mind, one possible way to mobilize this data to action could be to consider increasing the services offered during the third week of each month, for instance by distributing extra food to clients, to overcome this potential barrier to care. This would ensure that the population is still supported throughout the month with no interruptions. The data also reveal that pet servicing is tightly related to community issues and cannot be adequately understood in isolation.

Limitations

Our study focused on a limited population present in the Vancouver DTES area and uses data from a single pet food bank run by the BC SPCA. This decreases our ability to generalize our findings to other pet-owning populations experiencing financial strain in other areas of the world. However, unlike in previous studies, our data involves not only a population of people experiencing homelessness but also anyone who is experiencing financial hardship, providing a more comprehensive picture.

Further, we also missed 2 years of data (2015 and 2016), which could have provided us with a more complete understanding of the service patterns over time.

Conclusion

We found that most companion animals serviced in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, each week were cats, followed by dogs. This surprising finding is likely due to the nature of our target population, which comprised of people experiencing homelessness as well as those that are housed or partially-housed. We also found that a large proportion of companion animals serviced were pet rats, which indicates a need for greater focus on supportive services for pet rats in pet food banks. Both of these findings highlight the need for researchers to increase their focus on more diverse populations when studying the human-animal bond and community services. Furthermore, we found that in 2020, the number of human clients, and cats, rats, rabbits, and “other” animals statistically significantly decreased from the previous year, likely due to COVID-19. However, the number of dogs serviced remained stable across time, suggesting that servicing needs may be different by pet species. Our data showed that attendance at the food bank was lower during the fourth week of each month, which coincided with income assistance schedules. This finding may bring to light access to care issues and highlight the need to consider pet food banks within the greater social services networks. Taking a “One Health” approach to servicing, that is, integrating provision of health and community support for humans and their pets (49), is likely to be a useful strategy. Future research is needed on efficacy and feasibility of merging human and companion animal servicing to the benefit of both.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by The University of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board (H20-03807). Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

MS and AP contributed to the conception of the study, subsequent study design, and performed statistical analyses. MS acquired and organized the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Both authors contributed to the manuscript, further revisions, and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Kim Monteith, Annabelle Leclerc, Diane Waters, and Dr. Sara Dubois from the BC SPCA for their support. We would also like to thank Cheng Yu Hou for his assistance in obtaining our analyzed records.

References

1. Blundell R, Dias MC, Joyce R, Xu X. COVID-19 and inequalities*. Fiscal Stud. (2020) 41:291–319. doi: 10.1111/1475-5890.12232

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. McElroy E, Patalay P, Moltrecht B, Shevlin M, Shum A, Creswell C, et al. Demographic and health factors associated with pandemic anxiety in the context of COVID-19. Br J Health Psychol. (2020) 25:934–44. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12470

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Brosemer K, Schelly C, Ganon V, Arola KL, Pearce JM, Bessette D, et al. The energy crises revealed by COVID: intersections of Indigeneity, inequity, and health. Energy Res Soc Sci. (2020) 68:101661. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101661

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Swinnen J, McDermott J. Covid-19 and global food security. EuroChoices. (2020) 19:26–33. doi: 10.1111/1746-692X.12288

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Hirvonen K, de Brauw A, Abate G. Food consumption and food security during the COVID-19 pandemic in Addis Ababa. Am J Agric Econ. (2021) 103:13–8. doi: 10.2499/p15738coll2.134018

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Larue B. Labor issues and COVID-19. Can J Agric Econ. (2020) 68:231–7. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12233

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Gundersen C, Hake M, Dewey A, Engelhard E. Food insecurity during COVID-19. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. (2021) 43:153–61. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13100

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Dominelli L. A green social work perspective on social work during the time of COVID-19. Int J Soc Welfare. (2021) 30:7–16. doi: 10.1111/ijsw.12469

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Blackmon L, Chan R, Carbral O, Chintapally G, Dhara S, Felix P, et al. Rapid development of a decision support system to alleviate food insecurity at the los angeles regional food bank amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Prod Operat Manag. (2021) 4–7. doi: 10.1111/poms.13365

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Bowen J, García E, Darder P, Argüelles J, Fatjó J. The effects of the Spanish COVID-19 lockdown on people, their pets, and the human-animal bond. J Vet Behav. (2020) 40:75–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2020.05.013

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Ratschen, E., et al. Human-animal relationships and interactions during the Covid-19 lockdown phase in the UK: Investigating links with mental health and loneliness. PLoS ONE. (2020) 15:e0239397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239397

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Shoesmith E, Shahab L, Kale D, Mills DS, Reevee C, Toner P, et al. The influence of human–animal interactions on mental and physical health during the first COVID-19 lockdown phase in the U.K.: a qualitative exploration. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:976. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18030976

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Rhoades H, Winetrobe H, Rice E. Pet ownership among homeless youth: associations with mental health, service utilization and housing status. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. (2015) 46:237–44. doi: 10.1007/s10578-014-0463-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Lem M, Coe JB, Haley DB, Stone E, O'Grady W. The protective association between pet ownership and depression among street-involved youth: a cross-sectional study. Anthrozoös. (2016) 29:123–36. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1082772

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Irvine L. Animals as lifechangers and lifesavers: pets in the redemption narratives of homeless people. J Contempor Ethnogr. (2013) 42:3–30. doi: 10.1177/0891241612456550

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Mudaly N, Graham A, Lewis N. “It takes me a little longer to get angry now”: Homeless children traumatised by family violence reflect on an animal therapy group. Child Aust. (2014) 39:42–8. doi: 10.1017/cha.2013.39

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Thompson K, Every D, Rainbird S, Cornell V, Smith V, Trigg J, et al. No pet or their person left behind: increasing the disaster resilience of vulnerable groups through animal attachment, activities and networks. Animals. (2014) 4:214–40. doi: 10.3390/ani4020214

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Irvine L, Kahl KN, Smith JM. Confrontations and donations: encounters between homeless pet owners and the public. Sociol Q. (2012) 53:25–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01224.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Yang H, Howarth A, Hansen SR, Harrell L, Thatcher CD. Understanding the attachment dimension of human-animal bond within a homeless population: a one-health initiative in the Student Health Outreach for Wellness (SHOW) clinic. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2020) 1–15. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2020.1801434. [Epub ahead of print].

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Curry SR, Morton M, Matjasko JL, Dworsky A, Samuels GM, Schlueter D, et al. Youth homelessness and vulnerability: how does couch surfing fit? Am J Community Psychol. (2017) 60:17–24. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12156

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. McLoughlin PJ. Couch surfing on the margins: the reliance on temporary living arrangements as a form of homelessness amongst school-aged home leavers. J Youth Stud. (2013) 16:521–45. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2012.725839

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Huard R. Housing projects targets homeless, low-income. San Diego Business J. (2018) 39:10. Available online at: https://www.sdbj.com/news/2018/nov/25/housing-projects-targets-homeless-low-income/

23. Statistics Canada. Data products, 2016 Census. (2016). Available online at: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/index-eng.cfm (accessed August 10, 2021)

24. City of Vancouver. Downtown Neighbourhood Social Indicators Profile. (2020). Available online at: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/social-indicators-profile-downtown.pdf (accessed March 3, 2021).

25. Linden IA, Mar MY, Werker GR, Jang K, Krausz M. Research on a vulnerable neighborhood—the vancouver downtown eastside from 2001 to 2011. J Urban Health. (2013) 90:559–73. doi: 10.1007/s11524-012-9771-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Richardson L, Liang A, Choi J, Nosova E, Milloy M-J, Marshall BD, et al. Effect of alternative income assistance schedules on drug use and drug-related harm: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Public Health. (2021) 6:e324–34. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00023-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Mistler CB, Sullivan MC, Copenhaver MM, Meyer JP, Roth AM, Shenoi SV, et al. Differential impacts of COVID-19 across racial-ethnic identities in persons with opioid use disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat. (2021) 129:108387. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108387

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Somers JM, Moniruzzaman A, Rezansoff SN. Migration to the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood of Vancouver and changes in service use in a cohort of mentally ill homeless adults: a 10-year retrospective study. BMJ Open. (2016) 6:e009043. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009043

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Shannon K, Bright V, Duddy J, Tyndall MW. Access and utilization of HIV treatment and services among women sex workers in Vancouver's downtown eastside. J Urban Health. (2005) 82:488–97. doi: 10.1093/jurban/jti076

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

30. LaVallee E, Mueller MK, McCobb E. A systematic review of the literature addressing veterinary care for underserved communities. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2017) 20:381–94. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1337515

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Conway B, Truong D, Wuerth K. COVID-19 in homeless populations: unique challenges and opportunities. Fut Virol. (2020) 15:331–4. doi: 10.2217/fvl-2020-0156

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

32. BC SPCA (BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). COVID-19 & Pets. Available online at: https://spca.bc.ca/covid19-faq/ (accessed August 10, 2021).

33. BC SPCA (BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). Charlie's Pet Food Bank. Available online at: https://spca.bc.ca/programs-services/community-work/charlies-pet-food-bank-free-vet-clinic/ (accessed March 30, 2021).

34. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio. Boston, MA: PBC (2020). Available online at: http://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed August 20, 2021).

35. Cleary M, Visentine D, Thapa DK, West S, Raeburn T, Kornhaber R. The homeless and their animal companions: an integrative review. Adm Policy Ment Health. (2020) 47:47–59. doi: 10.1007/s10488-019-00967-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. AAFP. AAFP position statement. J Feline Med Surg. (2016) 18:752–8. doi: 10.1177/1098612X21993657

PubMed Abstract

37. Cline MG, Witzel AL, Moyers TD, Kirk CA. Body composition of lean outdoor intact cats vs lean indoor neutered cats using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Feline Med Surg. (2019) 21:459–64. doi: 10.1177/1098612X18780872

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Animal Medicines Australia. Pets in Australia: A National Survey of Pets and People. (2019). Available online at: https://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/report/pets-in-australia-a-national-survey-of-pets-and-people/.

39. Hou AH, Protopopova A. Predictors of Surrender and Adoption of Pet Rats in British Columbia, Canada. Poster Presentation at the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Recent Advances in Animal Welfare Science VIII. Virtual (2021).

40. APPA. Pet Industry Market Size, Trends & Ownership Statistics. (2019). Available online at: https://www.americanpetproducts.org/ (accessed March 12, 2021).

41. OVMA (Ontario Veterinary Medical Association). The Annual Cost of Owning a Kitten. Stouffville, ON (2020).

42. OVMA (Ontario Veterinary Medical Association). The Annual Cost of Owning a Puppy. Stouffville, ON (2020).

43. Government of British Columbia. BC Employment and Assistance Summary Report. Government of British Columbia (2021).

44. Government of British Columbia. Income Assistance Payment Dates - Province of British Columbia. (2021). Available online at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/income-assistance/payment-dates.

45. Shapiro JM. Is there a daily discount rate? Evidence from the food stamp nutrition cycle. J Public Econ. (2005) 89:303–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Stephens M. ‘3rd of the Month’: do social security recipients smooth consumption between checks? Am Econ Rev. (2003) 93:406–22. doi: 10.1257/000282803321455386

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Wilde PE, Ranney CK. The monthly food stamp cycle: shopping frequency and food intake decisions in an endogenous switching regression framework. Am J Agric Econ. (2000) 82:200–13. doi: 10.1111/0002-9092.00016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Macmadu A, Rich JD. Commentary on Richardson et al. : Strategies to mitigate payment-coincident drug-related harms are urgently needed. Addiction. (2021) 116:546–7. doi: 10.1111/add.15325

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

49. World Health Organization. One Health. (2017). Available online at: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/one-health.