Assessment of Community Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Equine Welfare in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia

Assessment of Community Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Equine Welfare in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 27 August 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Assessment of Community Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Equine Welfare in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia Authors : Yshak Tagesse , Gashaw Getaneh Dagnaw , Mebrie Zemene Kinde , Abebe Tesfaye Gesesse , melkie dagnaw Fenta , Yitayew Demessie , Kalkidan Getnet , … Show All … , Abebe Belete Bitew , Sefinew Alemu Mekonnen , Asnakew Mulaw Berihun 0000-0001-5804-125X , Nesibu Tilahun Yesist , Dagmawi Yitbarek 0009-0007-7058-2463 [email protected] , and Bemrew Admassu Mengistu Show Fewer Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175630324.43419295/v1 285 views 111 downloads Contents Abstract ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS Data management and analysis RESULTS Association between socio-demographic variables and practices 5. DISCUSSION 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS References Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract A cross-sectional study was conducted from January to August 2024 involving 427 participants from four randomly selected kebeles in Bahir Dar city, Ethiopia, to assess community knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding equine welfare. Data were collected through the administration of a semi-structured, pre-tested questionnaire. The collected data were entered into Microsoft Excel and then transferred to SPSS version 29 for analysis. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the data, and a chi-square test was used to evaluate the association of sociodemographic factors with the knowledge, attitude, and practices of equine owners towards equine welfare. About 391 (91.6%) of the equine owners who participated in this study were male, while 36 (8.4%) were female. The average score of the respondents’ knowledge out of the 50 possible points was 34.78(±5.320). About 44.0% of respondents had a higher average knowledge score. Only 2.8% of participants had a positive attitude, while 21% had a negative attitude towards equine welfare. The average score of the respondents ’practice out of the 75 possible points was low 50 (±2.666). About 97.9% of respondents had a medium average practice score (Fair). Knowledge and attitude are significantly associated with the socio-demographics of owners and each other (p<0.05). Generally KAP of community toward equine welfare is low. The research findings demonstrate the need for targeted education and training on knowledge, attitude and practices, and community conversions to engage equine owners in discussion to improve equine welfare. Assessment of Community Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Equine Welfare in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia ABSTRACT A cross-sectional study was conducted from January to August 2024 involving 427 participants from four randomly selected kebeles in Bahir Dar city, Ethiopia, to assess community knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding equine welfare. Data were collected through the administration of a semi-structured, pre-tested questionnaire. The collected data were entered into Microsoft Excel and then transferred to SPSS version 29 for analysis. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the data, and a chi-square test was used to evaluate the association of sociodemographic factors with the knowledge, attitude, and practices of equine owners towards equine welfare. About 391 (91.6%) of the equine owners who participated in this study were male, while 36 (8.4%) were female. The average score of the respondents’ knowledge out of the 50 possible points was 34.78(±5.320). About 44.0% of respondents had a higher average knowledge score. Only 2.8% of participants had a positive attitude, while 21% had a negative attitude towards equine welfare. The average score of the respondents ’practice out of the 75 possible points was low 50 (±2.666). About 97.9% of respondents had a medium average practice score (Fair). Knowledge and attitude are significantly associated with the socio-demographics of owners and each other (p<0.05). Generally KAP of community toward equine welfare is low. The research findings demonstrate the need for targeted education and training on knowledge, attitude and practices, and community conversions to engage equine owners in discussion to improve equine welfare. Keywords : - Attitude, Bahir Dar, Equine, Equine welfare, Ethiopia, Knowledge, Practice INTRODUCTION Animal welfare is a scientific notion that refers to the quality of life of a living animal which may be measured at a certain moment in time. Much of the discussion about animal welfare concerns what humans do about it, or should do about it (Broom, 2011). Animal welfare includes both the animal’s physical and emotional well-being. The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) committee declared that an animal must at minimum, be allowed to move around freely enough to turn around, groom itself, get up, lie down, and extend its limbs (Webster, 2016). Animal welfare concerns have a tendency to highlight distinct aspects of animal well-being. The ability of animals to live reasonably natural lives by engaging in natural behaviors and having natural elements in their surroundings, as well as their physical health and biological functioning (being such as free from disease, injury, and hunger) are all included in an integrated concept of animal welfare (Lemma et al .,2022) Equine welfare is a multidimensional concept that considers the physical health, mental well-being, and behavioral freedom of horses, donkeys, and mules (McGreevy, 2018). In many low-income countries, equines are vital to household economies, providing labor, transportation, and income. However, their welfare is frequently compromised due to long working hours, poor feeding, inadequate rest, and lack of veterinary care. In Ethiopia, it is common to see working equines foraging in garbage or being subjected to abuse and neglect, leading to a drastically reduced working life expectancy of just 4–6 years (Sisay, 2013; Solomon and Rahmeto, 2010). The welfare of working equines is largely shaped by the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of their owners. Studies suggest that public perception of animal welfare significantly influences how animals are handled, managed, and treated (Fenner et al., 2021). Owners’ understanding and values determine whether they provide humane care or inadvertently compromise welfare. Factors such as cultural beliefs, education, and economic status affect equine welfare decisions. Yet, in many developing countries, including Ethiopia, limited research exists on the psychological or behavioral characteristics of equine owners and how these factors influence equine welfare (Luna and Tadich, 2019). In the Ethiopian context, equines play a central role in supporting the livelihoods of thousands of families, particularly in rural and urban-fringe areas. Despite their economic and social value, there is a significant lack of data on how communities perceive and manage equine welfare. In the Amhara Region, and specifically in Bahir Dar City, poor husbandry practices, including inadequate feeding, limited exercise, and the absence of proper shelter, are common. Compounded by poor access to veterinary services, these factors result in widespread welfare concerns (Arega et al., 2023; Getnet et al., 2014). Yet no published studies have systematically assessed the community’s KAP regarding equine welfare in this setting. Understanding how equine owners think and act is crucial to designing effective interventions that can improve both animal well-being and owner livelihoods. This study seeks to address this gap by evaluating community knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning equine welfare in Bahir Dar. The findings will provide evidence to inform education, outreach, and policy development. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted in Bahir Dar city, the capital of Amhara Regional State (Figure 1), located 563 km from the capital Addis Ababa at 11’29”N latitude, 37’29”E longitude with an altitudinal range of 1500-2300 meters above sea level. Bahir Dar city comprises 40 kebeles, including the central city, peri-urban, and rural administrative kebeles. The area’s mean annual temperature and rainfall are 23°C and 1200-1600 mm, respectively. The topography of the area is characterized as a plain with slight slopes, covering about 70% of the total land. The area is marked by Lake Tana, which drains the region, as stated by the Amhara National Regional State Agricultural Bureau (ANRSAB) in the 1999 Planning and Statistical Bulletin, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia (Getnet et al ., 2014). According to the 2021 Central Statistical Agency (CSA) report, the city has a population of approximately 332,865, with females comprising 50.2% of the population. Based on data from the Bahir Dar City Agriculture Office (unpublished), the equine population includes 6,024 donkeys, 1,887 mules, and 101 horses, totaling 8,012 animals. A cross-sectional study design was carried out from January 2024 to August 2024 to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of equine owners related to equine welfare. The study population included voluntary participants who were owners of horses, mules, or donkeys., Eligible participants were at least 18 years of age, had lived in the study area for a minimum of six months, and had no restrictions based on sex, religion, or education level. Problems such as sickness and other problems faced by some of the voluntary participants in the interview days were addressed by offering them another opportunity to participate on a different day. And those who did not own any equines, age less than 18 years, involuntary to participate and lived less than 6 months in the study area were excluded for this study. The sample size was calculated using the formula provided by Thrusfield (2018), assuming the expected proportion would be 50% as there was no previous study in the study area. In this calculation 95% confidence level, and 5% required absolute precision was used. Accordingly, the sample size was calculated based on the following formula: \begin{equation} n=\frac{{1.96}^{2}\left[\text{Pexp}\right.\ \left(1-Pexp\right)}{d^{2}}\nonumber \\ \end{equation} Where n is the required sample size, Pexp is the expected proportion, and d is the desired absolute precision \begin{equation} n=\frac{{1.96}^{2}\left[0.5\right.\ \left(1-0.5\right)}{{0.5}^{2}}\nonumber \\ \end{equation}\begin{equation} n=\frac{3.8416\left(0.25\right)}{0.0025}\nonumber \\ \end{equation} \(n=\)384 10% non-response rate was calculated by the following formula given by (Cochran, 1977). \begin{equation} n^{\prime}=\frac{n}{1-non\ respondent\ rate}\nonumber \\ \end{equation} \(\frac{384}{1-10\%}\)= n’ =427 where n’=adjusted sample size (n) Therefore, the total sample size included in this study was 427. Sampling Strategies The sample was collected from four kebeles, namely Workemla, Wereb, Zege, and Adis Alem, out of the 40 kebeles of Bahir Dar city, using simple random sampling. About 427 households that owned equines were included in the study by using systematic sampling from a total of 2508 households across the selected kebeles, with one household selected from every sixth household. Then, one eligible participant who was actively engaged with the equine for any purpose was randomly selected from each household. A semi-structured, pre-tested questionnaire was used to collect the data. The questionnaire, developed after a thorough literature review of KAP surveys on equine welfare (Alemayehu et al ., 2022). The questionnaire was prepared in English then translated into the local language, Amharic, to ensure clear communication. The questionnaire consists of four sections: sociodemographic, knowledge, attitude, and practice-related questions. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews. Owners’ knowledge of equine welfare was assessed using ten closed-ended questions on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Scores were categorized as high (≥80%, ≥40/50), moderate (60–79%, 30–39), and low (<60%, <30) (Norman and Streiner, 2008; Fink, 2017). Attitudes were measured with ten Likert-scale items. Scores were classified as positive (≥80%, ≥40/50), neutral (60–79%, 30–39), or negative (<60%, Likert-scale questions evaluated owners’ practices. Total scores were categorized as good (≥80%, ≥60/75), fair (60–79%, 45–59), and poor (<60%, <45) (Norman and Streiner, 2008; Fink, 2017). Ethical clearance was obtained from the [masked for review], to conduct this research work. Informed consent was obtained from the participants after a detailed explanation of the study’s purpose, the absence of associated risks, the significance of the research, and the confidentiality of the data. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants were informed that they could refuse or withdraw at any time. Data management and analysis The data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2010, coded, cleaned, filtered, and exported into SPSS version 29 for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage were used to summarize the data and the association between KAP of the community and socio-demographic factors was analyzed by using Chi-square statistics. A p-value less than 0.05 were considered as statistically significant for all analyses. RESULTS A total of 427 equine owners participated, with 91.6% (n=391) male and 8.4% (n=36) female. Most respondents (50.6%) were aged 31–42 years, while 36.8% had attained primary education or higher. All of respondents (100%) were using there equines for livelihood purpose. Of the total interviewed participants, 53.2% kept mules, 46.6% kept donkeys and 0.2% kept horses. Most participants (96.3%) had not heard about equine welfare before and/or did not have any information on equine welfare. Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the study population Sex Male 391 91.6 Female 36 8.4 Age(years) 18-30 180 42.2 31-42 216 50.6 43-54 30 7.0 above 54 1 0.2 Education status Illiterate 130 30.4 Read and write 140 32.8 Primary school and above 157 36.8 Religion Christian Orthodox 410 96 Muslim 10 2.3 Protestant 7 1.6 Marital status Married 417 97.7 Single 10 2.3 Widow 0 0 Divorced 0 0 Types of equine do owners have Horse 1 0.2 Donkey 199 46.6 Mule 227 53.2 Equine for livelihood purpose Yes 427 100.0 No 0 0.0 Work experience of owners(years) 1-3 172 40.3 4-6 169 39.1 7-9 79 18.5 Above 9 9 2.1 Heard equine welfare before/have information on equine welfare Yes 16 3.7 No 411 96.3 Total 427 100.0 Knowledge of equine welfare The mean knowledge score was 34.78 ± 5.32 out of 50. Higher knowledge levels were found in 44% of respondents, medium in 38.4%, and low in 17.6%. The respondents recorded the lowest mean score for item 1, which was “able to assess the amount and quality of feed”, with a mean of 3(±0.998) and for item 5, which was “able to tell when animals are hungry or unhappy”, with a mean (±SD) of 3(±0.996). However, the highest score among the respondents related to untreated injuries affect the well-being and productivity of animal was recorded for the item 7, with a mean of 4(±0.291) shown in detail Table 2. Table 2. Knowledge on equine welfare among the study participants Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1 Able to assess the amount and quality of feed N 0 211 3 213 0 3.00(±0.998) % 0 49.4 0.7 49.9 0 2 Free grazing is important for the animals N 0 13 0 414 0 3.94(±0.344) % 3 0 97 0 3 Animals need of sufficient, clean and comfortable area to lie down N 126 4 287 10 3.42(±0.940) % 0 29.5 0.9 67.2 2.3 4 Equine are sentient N 79 13 331 4 3.61(±0.793) % 18.5 3 77.5 0.9 5 Able to tell when animals are hungry or unhappy N 0 211 4 212 0 3.00(±0.996) % 0 49.4 0.9 49.6 0 6 Owner care affects how animals grow/produce N 0 62 1 361 3 3.71(±0.714) % 0 14.5 0.2 84.5 0.7 7 Untreated injuries affect the well-being and productivity of animal N 0 6 0 409 12 4.00(±0.291) % 1.4 0 95.8 2.8 8 Without enough water, animals do not grow N 0 158 2 256 11 3.28(±0.998) % 0 37 0.4 60 2.6 9 Animals can suffer from physical pain N 0 78 0 338 11 3.66(±0.802) % 0 18.3 0 79.2 2.5 10 I can quickly tell when one of my animals is sick N 0 145 73 209 0 3.15(±0.899) % 0 34 17.1 48.9 0 N=Frequency, %=Percentage Attitude scores averaged 33.78 ± 3.93 out of 50. Only 2.8% of respondents had a positive attitude, 75.9% neutral, and 21% negative. Table 6 lists every question about the attitude toward equine welfare together with the percentage of a right answer. The respondents recorded the lowest mean score for item 3, with a mean (±SD) of 2.63(±0.929), which was “animals need to be able to perform their natural behaviors”. The highest recorded score of respondents was for the item 7, with a mean (±SD) of 3.95 (±0.325), which was “it is important to me that I care for my animals”. Table 3: Attitudes of the respondents towards equine welfare Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1 I am confident in getting my animals to move where I want N 0 79 21 327 0 3.58(±0.784) % 0 18 4.9 76.6 0 2 My animals will learn more from being hit then instructed N 6 192 3 224 2 3.06(±1.024) % 1.4 46.0 0.7 52.5 0.5 3 Animals need to be able to perform their natural behaviors N 1 286 17 118 5 2.63(±0.929) % 0.2 67.0 4.0 27.6 1.2 4 I feel confident treating injuries that my animals may have N 0 25 0 402 0 3.88(±0.470) % 0 5.9 0 94.1 0 5 My animals must have enough water to drink N 0 128 1 298 0 3.40(±0.917) % 0 30.0 0.2 69.8 0 6 It is important to assess the health and welfare of my animals every day N 0 122 0 292 13 3.46(±0.940) % 0 28.6 0 68.4 3 7 It is important to me that I care for my animals N 0 11 0 414 2 3.95(±0.325) % 0 2.6 0 97 0.5 8 I believe my animals are happy and healthy N 0 185 0 242 0 3.13(±0.992) % 43.3 0 56.7 0 9 Animals need to feel safe in my care N 0 113 1 313 0 3.47(±0.883) % 0 26.5 0.2 73.5 10 I believe that animals need rest N 0 172 3 237 15 3.22(±1.025) % 0 40.3 0.7 55.5 3.5 N=Frequency, %=Percentage Respondents’ mean practice score was 50 ± 2.67 out of 75. About 97.9% demonstrated fair-level practices, with none achieving a good level. Only 1.9% recorded poor practices. All of the questions about equine welfare practices are listed in Table 7, along with the percentage of correct answers. The respondents recorded the minimum mean score for item 15 with a mean of 2.55(±0.885) which was “my animals are left from work until fully recovered from any abnormalities”. Highest recorded score of respondents was for the item 7 with mean (±SD) of 3.96 (±.357) which was “I consult with a trained health service provider when my animals is sick or injured”. Table 4. Practices of the study participants related to equine welfare Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1 My animals get enough to feed every day N 1 9 18 393 6 3.92(± 0.395) % 0.2 2.1 4.2 92.0 1.4 2 I monitor the growth /weight of my animals N 54 148 170 55 0 2.53(± 0.873) % 12.6 34.7 39.8 12.9 3 When I notice my animals are hungry, I act N 11 46 2 368 0 3.70(± 0.762) % 2.6 10.8 0.5 86.2 4 My animals have a chance to move freely every day N 143 219 10 55 0 1.95(± 0.934) % 33.5 51.3 2.3 12.9 5 I need to beat my animals get them to do what I want N 8 113 7 299 0 3.40(± 0.940) % 1.9 26.5 1.6 70.0 6 When I see an injury on my animals, I treat it N 0 94 0 327 6 3.57(± 0.845) % 22.0 76.6 1.4 7 I consult with a trained health service provider when my animals is sick or injured N 0 12 0 408 7 3.96(± 0.357) % 2.8 95.6 1.6 8 My animals can drink water whenever they want N 0 116 8 303 0 3.44(± 0.890) % 27.2 1.9 71 9 It is common for my adult animals to get sick N 0 26 9 392 0 3.86(±0.495) % 6.1 2.1 91.8 10 My animals are exposed to heat or kept in poor housing N 0 100 2 325 0 3.53(± 0.848) % 23.4 0.5 76.1 11 Some of my animals suffer from lameness N 0 28 6 393 0 3.85(± 0.506) % 6.6 1.4 92.0 12 My animals walked long distance when selling and buying N 2 30 4 391 0 3.84(± 0.554) % 0.5 7.0 0.9 91.6 13 My animals carry overload N 6 215 9 197 0 2.93(± 1.009) % 1.4 50.4 2.1 46.1 14 My animals get enough rest N 0 216 4 207 0 2.98(± 0.996) % 50.6 0.9 48.5 15 My animals are left from work until fully recovered from any abnormalities N 0 307 6 114 0 2.55(± 0.885) % 71.9 1.4 26.7 N=Frequency, %=percentage Respondents level of knowledge regarding equine welfare is significantly associated with their socio-demographic characteristics. Individuals with higher education level had better knowledge level on equine welfare than those with less educated. . Similarly, the study participants with extended work experience had a good knowledge level on equine welfare compared with those with less experienced. Table 5: Association of knowledge with socio demographics characteristics Higher (%) Medium (%) Lower (%) Sex Male 391 162(44) 131(30.7) 71(16.9) 0.001* Female 36 0 33(7.7) 3(0.7) Age(years) 18-30 180 80(18.7) 78(18.3) 22(5.2) 0.010* 31-42 216 96(22.5) 79(18.5) 41(9.6) 43-54 30 11(2.6) 7(1.6) 12(2.8) Above 54 1 1(0.2) 0 0 Education level Illiterate 130 1(0.2) 58(13.6) 71(16.6) 0.001* Read and write 140 39(9.1) 98(23) 3(0.7) Primary school and above 157 148(34.7) 891.9) 1(0.2) Religion Christian orthodox 410 185(43.3) 153(35.8) 72(16.9) 0.136 Muslim 10 2(0.5) 7(1.6) 1(0.2) Protestant 7 1(0.2) 4(0.9) 2(0.5) Marital status Married 417 187(43.8) 159(37.2) 71(16.6) 0.050 Single 10 1(0.2) 5(1.2) 4(0.9) Work experience(years) 1-3 172 40(9.4) 109(25.5) 23(5.4) 0.001* 4-6 167 90(21.1) 45(10.5) 32(7.5) 7-9 79 51(11.9) 8(1.9) 20(4.7) Above 9 9 7(1.6) 2(0.5) 0 Have information on equine welfare Yes 16 14(3.3) 2(0.5) 0 0.002* No 411 174(40.7) 162(37.9) 75(17.6) *Statistically significant There is a significant association between respondents’ attitude and their socio-demographics. Education status of respondent is associated with attitude level of the respondent. Higher levels of formal education often correlate with greater access to information and resources, potentially leading to increased attitude. Those with lower education levels might have less exposure or fewer opportunities to learn. Attitude associated with hearing of animal welfare. Generally variations of attitude (Positive, Neutral and Negative) are related to socio-demographics of respondent. The association of each of the recorded demographics with attitude was described in detail in Table 9. Table 6: Association of attitude and demographics of respondents Positive (%) Neutral (%) Negative (%0 p-value Sex Male 391 10(2.3) 291(68.1) 90(21.1) 0.040* Female 36 0 34(8) 2(0.5) Age(years) 18-30 180 0 146(34.2) 34(8) 0.001* 31-42 216 6(1.4) 166(38.9) 44(10.3) 43-54 30 6(1.4) 12(2.8) 12(2.8) Above 54 1 0 1(0.2) 0 Education level Illiterate 130 4(0.9) 39(9.1) 87(20.4) 0.001* Read and write 140 8(1.9) 130(30.4) 2(0.5) Primary school and above 157 0 156(36.5) 1(0.2) Religion Christian orthodox 410 12(2.8) 311(72.8) 87(20.4) 0.818 Muslim 10 0 9(2.1) 1(0.2) Protestant 7 0 5(1.2) 2(0.5) Marital status Married 412 12(2.8) 318(74.5) 87(20.4) 0.696 Single 10 7(1.6) 3(0.7) Work experience(years) 1-3 172 9(2.1) 136(31.9) 27(6.3) 0.016* 4-6 169 1(0.2) 126(29.5) 40(9.4) 7-9 79 2(0.5) 54(12.6) 23(5.4) Above 9 9 0 9(2.1) 0 Have information on equine welfare Yes 16 2(0.5)) 14(3.3) 0 0.009* No 411 10(2.3) 311(72.8) 90(21.1) *Statistically significant Association between socio-demographic variables and practices All of the respondents practice level was not good. About 98.13% of respondents had fair knowledge level. Around 90.2% of respondents were males, and 8% were females. About 49.9% of respondents were in an age group of 31-42years. And 36.3% of participants had an education level primary and above. Approximately 39.8 participants had 1-3 years’ work experiences. The significance of association of practice level with socio-demographics of respondents was described in table 7. Table 7: Description of association of practice and demographics of respondents Good (%) Fair (%) Poor (%) Sex Male 391 0 385(90.2) 6(1.4) 0.089 Female 36 0 34(8.0) 2(0.5) Age(years) 18-30 180 0 175(41) 5(1.2) 0.644 31-42 216 0 213(49.9) 3(0.7) 43-54 30 0 30 0 Above 54 1 0 1(0.2) 0 Education level Illiterate 130 0 127(29.7) 3(0.7) 0.781 Read and write 140 0 137(32.1) 3(0.7) Primary school and above 157 0 155(36.3) 2(0.2) Religion Christian orthodox 410 0 402(94.1) 8(1.9) 0.844 Muslim 10 0 10(2.3) 0 Protestant 7 0 7(1.6) 0 Marital status Married 417 0 410(96) 7(1.6) 0.055 Single 10 0 9(2.1) 1(0.2) Work experience(years) 1-3 172 0 170(39.8) 2(0.5) 0.184 4-6 167 0 161(37.7) 6(1.4) 7-9 79 0 79(18.5) 0 Above 9 9 0 9(2.1) 0 Have information on equine welfare Yes 16 0 16(3.7) 0 0.573 No 411 0 403(94.4) 8(1.9) *Statistically significant There was a significant association between knowledge and attitude of respondents (p-value<0.001). However there was no significant association between knowledge and practice. However 43.8% high knowledge level respondents have a fair practice level. Even though, practice not associated with attitude, 74.9% of respondent who have neutral (medium attitude level) have had fair practice level. Table 8: Cross-tabulation and chi-square analysis of knowledge, attitude, and practice levels among participants (N=427) Positive High 0 (0.0) 289.877 <0.001 Moderate 21 (4.9) Low 69 (16.2) Neutral High 185 (43.3) Moderate 134 (31.4) Low 6 (1.4) Negative High 3 (0.7) Moderate 9 (2.1) Low 0 (0.0) Practice Fair Knowledge High 187 (43.8) 3.971 0.137 Moderate 160 (37.5) Low 72 (16.9) Poor High 1 (0.2) Moderate 4 (0.9) Low 3 (0.7) Practice Fair Attitude Positive 12 (2.8) 1.471 0.479 Neutral 320 (74.9) Negative 87 (20.4) Poor Positive 0 (0.0) Neutral 5 (1.2) Negative 3 (0.7) 5. DISCUSSION This study highlights disparities between knowledge and actual practices related to equine welfare. Despite moderately high knowledge scores, attitudes and especially practices were poor. While 44% of respondents had high knowledge scores, only 2.8% demonstrated a positive attitude, and none exhibited good welfare practices. This disconnect suggests that knowledge alone is insufficient to drive behavior change, possibly due to economic constraints or cultural norms. This disconnect suggests that knowledge alone is insufficient to drive behavior change, possibly due to economic constraints or cultural norms. There was association between sociodemographic with knowledge and attitude of the equine owners, but not associated with practice of the owners. And there was association between knowledge and attitude of the respondents. This study revealed a higher knowledge level than attitude and practice level of respondents, this aligns with the previous study (Wambui et al ., 2018, Alemayehu, et al ., 2022), underscoring a gap between theoretical knowledge and implementation. The adequate knowledge among animal owners is a prerequisite for optimal productivity and animal welfare (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011). Regarding knowledge level assessments on feeding, health care management, housing, and other animal welfare metrics, participant’ replies low, demonstrating a lack of a deep knowledge in most of the critical animal welfare issues. On assessing feed quality item, the mean response of the respondents was low. They are unable to assess the amount and quality of feed. This finding is consistent with findings from various studies where equine owners often struggle with understanding specific welfare needs like nutrition and behavioral signs (Nicol et al ., 2020; Webb et al ., 2022). And most of respondents unable to understand the ability of animal to tell their hungry or unhappy. The difficulty in recognizing signs of distress aligns with broader challenges in equine management (Hobbs et al ., 2019). Nutrition is an important aspect of welfare, and in most codes of recommendations for the welfare of animals, adequate nutrition is one of the primary requirements to be satisfied (Farm Animal Welfare Council, 1993). Improper feeding practices and insufficient access to quality forage can result in malnutrition, obesity, and related health problems. Meeting the nutritional needs of equine is crucial for their overall well-being (Dugdale et al ., 2010). In item 10, all of participants were not strongly agree, that was “I can quickly tell when one of my animals is sick”, but inadequate access to veterinary care and a lack of routine health check-ups can result in undetected illnesses and delayed treatment, negatively impacting the overall health (Bonsi et al ., 2023). This study shows that a substantial proportion of respondents had no prior knowledge of equine welfare, reflecting a significant gap in awareness. This may influence the attitude of community toward animal welfare. Animal owners’ attitudes toward equine welfare are an important component of effective equine management and care. They influence how individuals perceive, approach, and implement welfare practices (Macias and Glasauer, 2014). However the majorities’ attitude level in this study was low consistent previous study (Wambui et al ., 2018, Alemayehu, et al ., 2022) Table 6. The lowest mean score was recorded for the statement “animals need to be able to perform their natural behaviors”, indicating a lower agreement level on the importance of natural behaviors in equine welfare. This may reflect a lack of emphasis or understanding of the significance of behavioral enrichment. This result contrasts with contemporary welfare standards that emphasize the need for animals to exhibit natural behaviors to ensure their well-being. According to studies by Mason and Latham (2004), the ability to perform natural behaviors is crucial for animal welfare. Mason and Latham highlight that environmental enrichment and opportunities to express natural behaviors are essential for maintaining psychological well-being (Würbel and Novak, 2024). The mean of the response of respondents for the item “I feel confident treating injuries that my animals may have” is (3.88(±0.470)). This indicates that respondents feel capable of addressing health concerns, which is consistent with the findings that competence in injury management supports positive welfare outcomes. Research by Hockenhull and Creighton (2014) found that confidence in treating injuries is positively correlated with better welfare outcomes. Individuals who feel competent in managing health issues are likely to provide better care (Horseman et al , 2017). And only 3% of respondents were strongly agreed for Daily Health and Welfare Assessment. But the importance of daily health assessments is supported by studies such as those by McBride and Hockenhull (2016), which suggest that regular health checks are crucial for early detection of issues and overall welfare maintenance (Sommerville et al .,2018). Over all, the attitude level of the respondent in this study was low. This study displayed the practice level of the respondents was poor align with previos study (Klemcke and Dyson, 2014.Wambui et al ., 2018, Alemayehu, et al ., 2022). Most respondent not strongly agree for most of the given items. For example, the mean score of respondents for the item “My animals are left from work until fully recovered from any abnormalities” was very low. This is may be caused by different constraints, like using animal for livelihood purpose or lack of awareness on the management of the health of animal. 100% of respondents were using their equine for a livelihood purpose. They may lack income and economic life become difficult if they left their equine from work until it recovered from any abnormality. About (70.0%) of respondent agreed for the item “I need to beat my animals get them to do what I want”. But this is a poor practice, and has been previously described in similar way (Rahman et al ., 2004). Generally participants demonstrated varying levels of knowledge higher, medium and lower. The knowledge level of respondent could be influenced by socio-demographics of respondents. This study revealed that education level is a strongly associated with knowledge of respondents on equine welfare with P- value (0.001). The finding aligns with the previous study higher educational attainment is typically associated with greater awareness and understanding of welfare issues (Gibson et al ., 2022). Respondents with lower educational levels may lack access to detailed welfare information and training, which could explain lower knowledge scores. From this study analysis work experience also associated with knowledge of equine owners P- value (0.001). Experience with equines often correlates with a higher depth of practical knowledge. Experienced individuals are likely to have learned through direct interaction and problem-solving over time, which can enhance their understanding of equine behavior, health, and welfare (McGreevy et al., 2021). For example, individuals with years of experience may have a nuanced understanding of common health issues and effective treatments that is not always captured in formal educational settings. While practical experience is invaluable, it may sometimes limit exposure to new or evolving welfare practices if one is not actively engaged in ongoing education or professional development (Hobbs et al., 2019). Experienced handlers might have established routines that are resistant to change unless they actively seek out new information. The respondents those who have information about animal welfare had a positive attitude on equine welfare. And hearing information on animal welfare is associated with the attitude of respondents with p-value (0.009).The result align with a lack of appropriate information on animal welfare may prevent owners from developing a positive attitude toward animal welfare (Glanville et al ., 2020). This study found that attitudes varied significantly with age (p = 0.001). Also pervious study found that age can influence attitudes towards animal welfare. Older equine owners may hold more traditional views, which might affect their attitudes and practices negatively (Mason et al ., 2020). In contrast, younger individuals might be more open to new welfare standards and practices, potentially leading to more positive attitudes. And the practice level of respondent in this study was not a good. The poor practices toward animal welfare recorded in this study might be related to inadequate knowledge, which might relate to low awareness of the community on the physical, biological, and behavioral requirements of the animals and economic constraints to apply their knowledge. However attitude of respondent associated with knowledge of the owners. This is aligning with the other previous study (Alemayehu, et al ., 2022). Overall though, the equine owners exhibited poor animal welfare procedures, an unfavorable attitude toward the animals they cared for, and insufficient knowledge about animal welfare needs education and training regarding equine welfare. There were certain limitations to the current investigation. Because this study used a self-report methodology, its findings might not be consistent with those of observational studies because respondents may have described behaviors that do not necessarily match their actual practices when self-reporting. Due to social desirability bias, the collected data may represent the horse owners’ knowledge of the appropriate response rather than their actual behaviors. Future research should be observational in nature, taking place in the real working environment of horse owners, in order to prevent such bias. This could provide a more accurate picture of how they handle animals. 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study assesses the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of equine owners in Bahir Dar city regarding equine welfare. The findings reveal a high level of knowledge among participants compared to their attitudes and practices. Key areas of concern included poor recognition of behavioral and nutritional needs, limited appreciation for natural behaviors, and inadequate care for injured or ill animals. Although some respondents acknowledged the importance of veterinary consultation, most did not allow their animals adequate rest or recovery time. The results highlight a clear disconnect between knowledge and practical application, likely influenced by economic constraints, cultural norms, and lack of exposure to equine welfare education. Socio-demographic factors such as education level, work experience, and prior exposure to welfare information were significantly associated with improved knowledge and attitudes. However, these factors did not translate into better welfare practices, indicating a need for deeper engagement strategies beyond awareness alone. Thus, implementing educational programs and trainings, utilizing community conversations to engage equine owners in discussions, and conducting follow up studies and observational research to assess the impact of implemented changes on equine welfare practices is commendable. Acknowledgments The authors want to acknowledge the [masked for review] and equine owners who were willing to be interviewed for data collection, the [masked for review] Agricultural Office for providing essential background information, and the [masked for review] for funding the project. Availability of data and materials Authors are ready to provide available data for a request via email and any communication platform. Funding [masked for review] Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work References 1. Alemayehu, G., Berhe, T., Gelan, E., Mokria, M., Jaldessa, J., Molu, J., Wieland, B., Knight-Jones, T. and Doyle, R.E., 2022. Animal welfare knowledge, attitudes, and practices among livestock holders in Ethiopia. Frontiers in veterinary science , 9 , p.1006505. Arega, T., Bulbula, A., Fesseha, H., Arega, E.M. and Mezgebu, E., 2023. Welfare Problems of Equines in Sebeta Town and Suburbs, Central Ethiopia. Mathews Journal of Veterinary Science , 7 (1), pp.1-9. Bonsi, M., Anderson, N.E. and Carder, G., 2023. The Socioeconomic Impact of Diseases of Working Equids in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Critical Review. Animals , 13 (24), p.3865. Broom, D.M., 2011.A history of animal welfare science. Actabiotheoretica , 59 , pp.121-137. Cochran, W.G., 1977. Sampling techniques .johnwiley& sons. Dugdale, A.H.A., Curtis, G.C., Cripps, P., Harris, P.A. and Argo, C.M., 2010. Effect of dietary restriction on body condition, composition and welfare of overweight and obese pony mares. Equine Veterinary Journal , 42 (7), pp.600-610. Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). (1992). Report on the Five Freedoms. Farm Animal Welfare Council. (1993). Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future . Farm Animal Welfare Council. Fenner, K.K.H., 2021. The Equine Behavior Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ): How the domestic equine triad can advance ethical equitation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney). Fink, A. (2017). How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide (6th ed.). Getnet, F., Feyera, T., Alemu, F., Niguse, A. and Abera, T., 2014. Injuries in donkeys and mules: causes, welfare problems and management practices in Amhara Region, Northern Ethiopia. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 9 (4), pp.98-104. Gibson, T., Mitchell, J., & Harrison, A. (2022). Professional Consultations and Equine Welfare: An Analysis. Veterinary Record, 191 (12), 412-420. Glanville, C., Abraham, C. and Coleman, G., 2020. Human behaviour change interventions in animal care and interactive settings: A review and framework for design and evaluation. Animals , 10 (12), p.2333. Hemsworth, L.M., Jongman, E.C. and Coleman, G.J., 2021. The Human–Horse Relationship: Identifying the Antecedents of Horse Owner Attitudes towards Horse Husbandry and Management Behaviour. Animals , 11 (2), p.278. Hemsworth, P.H. and Coleman, G.C., 1998. Human-livestock interactions-the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals. JOURNAL-SOUTH AFRICAN VETERINARY ASSOCIATION , 69 , pp.92-92. Hemsworth, P.H., Mellor, D.J., Cronin, G.M. and Tilbrook, A.J., 2015. Scientific assessment of animal welfare. New Zealand veterinary journal , 63 (1), pp.24-30. Hobbs, S., Roberts, M., & Clarke, N. (2019). Nutritional Knowledge Among Equine Owners: A Survey. Journal of Equine Nutrition, 25 (4), 201-208. Horseman, S.V., Hockenhull, J., Buller, H., Mullan, S., Barr, A.R. and Whay, H.R., 2017. Equine welfare assessment: Exploration of British stakeholder attitudes using focus-group discussions. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 20 (2), pp.176-191. Klemcke, K., & Dyson, S. (2014). ”Equine welfare practices among horse owners.” Equine Veterinary Journal, 46 (2), 203-209. Lemma, M., Doyle, R., Alemayehu, G., Mekonnen, M., Kumbe, A. and Wieland, B., 2022.Using Community Conversations to explore animal welfare perceptions and practices of rural households in Ethiopia. Frontiers in veterinary science , 9 , p.980192. Luna, D. and Tadich, T.A., 2019. Why should human-animal interactions be included in research of working equids’ welfare?. Animals , 9 (2), p.42. Macias, Y., & Glasauer, P. (2014). Guidelines for assessing nutrition-related knowledge, attitudes and practices. KAP Manual. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization. Mason, G., Cooper, J., & Clare, P. (2020). Implementing Welfare Standards: Theoretical vs. Practical Challenges. Animal Welfare, 29 (4), 497-505. McGreevy, P., Berger, J., De Brauwere, N., Doherty, O., Harrison, A., Fiedler, J., Jones, C., McDonnell, S., McLean, A., Nakonechny, L. and Nicol, C., 2018.Using the five domains model to assess the adverse impacts of husbandry, veterinary, and equitation interventions on horse welfare. Animals , 8 (3), p.41. McGreevy, P., Murphy, C., & Sutherland, A. (2021). The Importance of Veterinary Care in Equine Welfare. Equine Veterinary Education, 33 (6), 512-520. Nicol, C., Waterman-Pearson, A., & Williams, J. (2020). Understanding and Improving Equine Welfare: An Overview. Journal of Animal Welfare Science, 18(3), 215-229. Norman, G.R. and Streiner, D.L., 2008. Biostatistics: the bare essentials . PMPH USA (BC Decker). Rahman SA, Reed K. The management and welfare of working animals:identifying problems, seeking solutions and anticipating the future. OIE Rev SciTech. (2014) 33:197–202. Sisay, W.Z., 2013. Causes and Factors Associated with the Episode of External Injuries in Cart-Horses of Mekelle Town, North Ethiopia. J. Vet. Adv , 3 , pp.265-274. Solomon Mekuria, S.M. and RahmetoAbebe, R.A., 2010. Observation on major welfare problems of equine in Meskan district, Southern Ethiopia. Sommerville, R., Brown, A.F. and Upjohn, M., 2018. A standardised equine-based welfare assessment tool used for six years in low and middle income countries. PLoS One, 13 (2), p.e0192354. Thrusfield, M., 2018. Veterinary epidemiology .John Wiley & Sons. Wambui, J., Lamuka, P., Karuri, E. and Matofari, J., 2018. Animal welfare knowledge, attitudes, and practices of stockpersons in Kenya. Anthrozoös , 31 (4), pp.397-410. Webb, S., Thompson, R., & Davidson, M. (2022). Assessing Knowledge and Practices in Equine Welfare. Journal of Veterinary Science, 23 (1), 112-121. Webster, J., 2016. Animal welfare: Freedoms, dominions and “a life worth living”. Animals , 6 (6), p.35. Würbel, H. and Novak, J., 2024. Environmental enrichment: animal welfare and scientific validity. The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals, pp.137-149. Crossref Google Scholar Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 27 August 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Authors Affiliations Yshak Tagesse University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Gashaw Getaneh Dagnaw University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Mebrie Zemene Kinde University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Abebe Tesfaye Gesesse University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author melkie dagnaw Fenta University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Yitayew Demessie University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Kalkidan Getnet University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Abebe Belete Bitew University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Sefinew Alemu Mekonnen University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Asnakew Mulaw Berihun 0000-0001-5804-125X University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Nesibu Tilahun Yesist University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Dagmawi Yitbarek 0009-0007-7058-2463 [email protected] Bahir Dar University View all articles by this author Bemrew Admassu Mengistu University of Gondar College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 285 views 111 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Yshak Tagesse, Gashaw Getaneh Dagnaw, Mebrie Zemene Kinde, et al. Assessment of Community Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Equine Welfare in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia. Authorea . 27 August 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175630324.43419295/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.175630324.43419295/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe89585796ae2c5',t:'MTc3OTI1MTE5NQ=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();