Skip to main content

Guidance

2.2 Prioritize Desired Changes in Animal Welfare and Human Behaviour

QUICK LINKS
2.2.1 Identify behavioural changes feasible for project to address
2.2.2. Prioritize desired changes in animal welfare and human behaviour
2.2.3 Craft behaviour change statements
Tools and resources helpful to supporting this step

2.2.1 Identify behavioural changes feasible for project to address

Based on your understanding of the root causes of animal welfare issues and knowledge of the support your project is prepared to provide, identify behaviours which are not beyond the scope of change agent’s capacity and your project/organization to address. Work with change agents as representatives of their communities, as well as other key informants such as local animal health service providers, and experienced animal health and welfare specialists to identify desired behaviours or actions the animal owning community could feasibly undertake to improve the quality of life of their animals relevant to the observed welfare issues and Five domains of animal welfare.

IMPORTANT

It is essential to ensure any potential behaviours or actions identified during this step will not cause unanticipated harm to animals’ welfare. As such, it is highly recommended to invite experienced animal health and welfare specialists from your organization or external institutions to participate in this activity, especially if facilitating staff are not sufficiently knowledgeable these topics. Alternatively, if such experts are not available to participate at the time of discussions with other stakeholders, ensure any identified behaviours or actions that emerge from these discussions are first reviewed by experienced persons prior to being deemed acceptable for the project to support.

When identifying potential desirable behaviours or actions the project/CCA’s could support target communities in adopting, it is useful to consider prioritizing potential target behaviours using the following criteria from the Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions [21]:

  1. How much of an impact adopting the behaviour would have on improving the overall welfare state of the animal in terms of the five domains.
  2. How likely it is the behaviour can be changed (when considering the likelihood of change being achieved, think about the barriers and motivators to change in terms of capability, opportunity, and motivation to change of those who perform the behaviour)
  3. How likely it is that the behaviour (or group of behaviours) will have a positive or negative impact on other, related behaviours.
  4. How easy it will be to measure the behaviour.

Different criteria may be more or less important in different contexts, and you are encouraged to select behaviours which are feasible for communities and the project to address given the local context.

In addition, when conducting this activity, remember that for behaviour change to be possible, identified behaviours need to be as specific as possible (non-divisible) and reflect the end-state behaviour [31]. Non-divisible behaviours refer to actions which cannot be divided further, while end state refers to the behaviours that produce the desired outcome [31]. A simple way to determine whether a behaviour is end-state is to ask, “Will engaging in this behaviour produce the intended animal welfare improvement?” [31]. If communities need to engage in another behaviour before the desired welfare improvement is achieved, the behaviour you have identified is not an end state behaviour.

Because barriers to adoption are often behaviour specific, ensuring behaviours are non-divisible and end state will help you ensure strategies to address them are more likely to address the potential barriers specific to their adoption [31]. Framing desired behaviours as non-divisible and end-state also helps ensure desired changes to improve animal welfare are clearly understood and actionable to CCAs and their target peers.

It also recommended to use this activity and its results to support building CCAs’ understanding of how they can use the different brainstormed behavioural changes and the five domains of animal welfare framework to negotiate behaviour change and support their target peer groups to identify alternative actions for improving their animals’ quality of life even when they feel constrained from being able to address some welfare issues. Consider populating a five domains of animal welfare framework with human behaviours identified as feasible for the project and CCA’s to support for referencing by CCAs as needed during the project. Refer to the Example of Five Domains of Animal Welfare for Donkeys Linked with Human Behaviours provided in the facilitator’s resources

2.2.2 Prioritize desired changes in animal welfare and human behaviour

Once animal welfare issues have been identified and their root causes understood, the next step is to prioritize the issues and desired changes. This section lays out a variety of ways for doing this, recognizing the need to accommodate the differing operating contexts or constraints projects may encounter. As a best practice, the preferences of the animal owning community should inform the identification of priority targets for change. If the individuals who are required to make changes do not have ownership of these decisions, action is unlikely to follow or be sustained. As discussed in the animal welfare learning module, improving indicators of animal welfare across a greater number of animal welfare domains is better for the animal than seeking improvements in the same number indicators within fewer welfare domains. For example, the animal will experience greater welfare improvements if three animal welfare issues are addressed within three domains, than if a similar number of issues were addressed within only one or two domains of welfare. Support communities to understand this and encourage them to prioritize animal welfare improvements across multiple domains, and within domains of welfare not previously addressed, while respecting their right to determine their own animal welfare improvement and related behaviour change priorities.

The following three processes are detailed below along with relevant their considerations to support determining priorities for change:

  1. Option 1: Target peer groups determine their collective animal welfare/behaviour change priorities
  2. Option 2: Individual households determine animal welfare/behaviour change priorities:
  3. Option 3: The Project determines animal welfare/behaviour change priorities
    These options seek to accommodate the realities projects may face when identifying priorities for change, depending on if it is feasible to bring target peer groups together, or whether the project will be working through individual households, or whether projects have priorities of their own which they are seeking to address. You need only select the option most applicable to your project’s context.

OPTION #1
Target peer group determination of collective animal welfare/behaviour change priorities

If it is feasible, all target peer group households are brought together to agree on priority animal welfare issues based on results of the Animal welfare transect walk/PWNA and identify behaviours/actions they will adopt to address them.

Option #1 Recommended Participatory Process:

  1. Target peer group prioritizes animal welfare issues by either writing the issues on separate cards and agreeing an order of preference (also known as Preference ranking) or using the ranking exercise within the Community Animal Welfare Needs Assessment tool.

    Then use the Community Animal Welfare Action Planning tool to facilitate peer group to:
  1. identify behaviour/action to be taken to address priority 2-3 welfare issue, making sure to be specific in terms of who is changing their behaviour/taking action, what they will do and any other relevant details (e.g. frequency, time, quantity, duration, place). If participants struggle to identify what actions they can take to improve their animals’ welfare, facilitators/CCAs can suggest ideas based on their knowledge of what is feasible, and the support that can be provided by the project using previously identified behaviours and actions (e.g. making welfare friendly equipment from locally sourced materials).
  2. identify expected changes and related indicators
  3. what resources/support is required for them to adopt these changes (e.g. prompt exploration of capacity, motivation, opportunity)
  4. Ensure participants share the agreed upon action plan with all members of their family and seek their agreement to support carrying out the action plan.

Option #1 Key Considerations:

  • This approach highly participatory and is recommended because it can promote a sense of ownership by target peer groups, thereby increasing the likelihood they will act.
  • Bringing the peer group together to reflect on PWNA results and agree on priorities together as a group means they will all be working towards making the same changes, which will enable them to support and learn from each other.
  • As the target peer group is working to make the same changes, it will be easier for CCAs to support them to collectively make changes as the community engagement strategy will be the same for the whole group.
  • As the entire peer group is making the same changes, peer group capacity building/trainings can be used to support the entire peer group’s changes, as opposed to needing to be tailored to support each individual household.
  • Action planning by the peer group as a collective can make monitoring easier because agreed upon indicators will be the same across the entire group.
  • If members of the CCA peer group are not known to one another, and there is little social cohesion, reaching a collective agreement may not be easy or desirable, and may require more expert facilitation.
  • It is recommended that opportunities be made to engage both men and women, and/or owners/carers/users in action planning if their roles and responsibilities in animal care and management, and related welfare issues differ. This will ensure certain groups are not making decisions about action to be taken by other groups. In such cases, it is important create safe space to raise concerns and to create dialogues/negotiations for sustainable change.
  • This approach will take more time as it requires home visits to conduct the same action planning activities with all target peer group households, rather than one or two meetings.
  • CCAs or community engagement agents can ask probing questions to help community members identify local resources and solutions for addressing welfare issues. They can also recommend solutions/actions community members can consider taking using their knowledge about the type of support the project is able to provide (e.g. capacity building training) and previously identified behaviours and actions for addressing root causes e.g. making welfare friendly saddles from locally available straw at no cost.

OPTION #2
Individual household determination of their animal welfare/behaviour change priorities

If it is not feasible to the target peer group together, CCA’s conduct household visits to seek agreement on each household’s priority animal welfare issues using results of the Animal welfare transect walk/PWNA and identify behaviours/actions they will adopt to address them.

Option #2 Recommended Participatory Process:

  1. Household members are facilitated to prioritize their animal welfare issues by either writing the issues on separate cards and agreeing and order of preference (also known as Preference ranking) or using the ranking exercise within the Community Animal Welfare Needs Assessment tool.

    Then adapt the Community Animal Welfare Action Planning tool for use with individuals to facilitate households to:
  2. Identify behaviour/action to be taken to address priority 2-3 welfare issue, making sure to be specific in terms of who is changing their behaviour/taking action, what they will do and any other relevant details (e.g. frequency, time, quantity, duration, place). If participants struggle to identify what actions they can take to improve their animals’ welfare, facilitators/CCAs can suggest ideas based on their knowledge of what is feasible and the support that can be provided by the project using previously identified behaviours and actions e.g. making welfare friendly equipment from locally sourced materials.
  3. Identify expected changes and related indicators.
  4. What resources/support is required for them to adopt these changes (e.g. prompt exploration of capacity, motivation, and opportunity).

Option #2 Key Considerations:

  • This approach is highly participatory and promotes a sense of ownership by target peer group households, thereby increasing the likelihood they will act.
  • This approach enables individual households to work on what matters most to them, which is particularly useful especially if other members of the CCA peer group are not known to them and reaching a collective agreement with such people may not be desired.
  • Reflecting on PWNA results and agreeing on priorities individually means households may not all be working towards making the same changes, which means they may be less likely to be able to have shared learnings to the same extent as would be possible if they were brought together to agree on priorities.
  • As the target peer group households may not be working to make the same changes, it may be more difficult for CCAs as the community engagement strategy may differ from household to household.
  • As each target peer group household may be working on different individual changes, the CCAs may be required to develop more specialist knowledge and skills to support each one, thereby proliferating the skills/trainings required of CCAs. However, as a result, the CCAs may be more knowledgeable and adept at promoting animal welfare and addressing a broader range of issues.
  • Monitoring indicators may differ from household to household, which may make aggregating results infeasible. CCAs will also be required to be aware of each household’s indicators and monitor in slightly different ways, and support may need to be provided to ensure this can be effectively carried out.
  • This approach will take more time as it requires home visits to conduct the same action planning activities with all target peer group households, rather than one or two meetings.
  • CCAs or community engagement agents can ask probing questions to help community members identify local resources and solutions for addressing welfare issues. They can also recommend solutions/actions community members can consider taking using their knowledge about the type of support the project is able to provide (e.g. capacity building training) and previously identified behaviours and actions for addressing root causes (e.g. making welfare friendly padding for working animals’ equipment from locally available straw at no cost).

OPTION #3
Project determination of animal welfare/behaviour change priorities

Project identifies target behaviours to be promoted by CCAs to achieve animal welfare improvements based on results of the Animal Welfare Transect Walk/PWNA. Ideally this process should be conducted in collaboration with the group of CCAs from similar geographic locations and contexts.

Option #3 Recommended Participatory Process:

The project works with CCAs to:

  1. Prioritize observed animal welfare issues based on the results of the Animal Welfare Transect Walk / PWNA, and your understanding gained from the root cause analysis in terms of issues which are feasible for the project to address. You can also refer the animal welfare priorities of communities discussed during consultations with communities during the initiation phase, incl. results from the ranking exercise within the Identifying Community Animal Welfare Needs by Gender tool, if conducted.
  2. Prioritize desired behaviour/actions to be promoted to improve priority animal welfare issues using the previously brainstormed behaviours/actions to select from, making sure to be specific in terms of the priority target group/who is responsible for the adopting the desired behaviour (e.g. men/women, animal owners/carers, users), what they will do and any other relevant details (e.g. frequency, time, quantity, duration, place)
  3. It is recommended to use a Matrix ranking and scoring tool to prioritize 2-3 desired behaviours for each priority target group, using criteria such as ease of adoption, perceived benefits to the priority target group’s lives, capacity to address group’s priority animal welfare issue. You can refer to the results of the Community animal welfare needs assessment tool, if conducted during consultations with communities during the initiation phase, along with other insights from those discussions to inform your ranking in accordance with different groups’ animal welfare priorities, and potential likelihood of perceived benefits and ease of adoption etc.
  4. Finally, identify the preconditions required for the different priority target groups to adopt and sustain these changes using understanding gained from the root cause analysis and insights about potential barriers and motivators to change gathered through discussions with animal owning communities during the initiation phase. Think about what resources and support do they need in terms of capacity motivation, opportunity). Ensure all preconditions listed are those which the project is prepared to support. If the project is not able to support the meeting of the preconditions identified, replace the target behaviour with another behavioural change priority and repeat the process ensuring the project can support addressing the pre-conditions necessary to people’s adoption of the desired behaviour.

Option #3 Key Considerations:

  • This approach is the least participatory and least collaborative, and therefore does not promote a sense of ownership amongst the target peer group households over the changes asked of them. As a result, there is an increased likelihood that community members may not be motivated to adopt or sustain the behaviour changes promoted by the project.
  • The lack of ownership over desired behaviour changes may be able to be offset to some degree through effective use of effective communication skills and motivational interviewing techniques (refer to facilitator resources related to Guidance on facilitating conversations for change, Guidance on listening for change talk, Essential communication skills for facilitating behaviour change, and Guidance on negotiating behaviour change. However, these skills require significant capacity building and practice to develop competency, and CCAs capacity and experience may not be sufficient to offset the lack of ownership caused by taking such a top down, non-participatory approach.
  • This process takes the least time to undertake as does not require meeting with communities and can utilize results from previously brainstormed behaviours; however, these initial time savings may be lost by the potential need to spend more time working with community members to motivate their adoption of changes which they did not participate in identifying, and which may not accurately reflect their interests.
  • It is highly recommended to focus initial efforts on promoting/prioritizing target behaviours which will be easy wins. This will build CCA’s and their target peer group’s belief in their capacity to change and generate further motivation to tackle more difficult behaviours thereafter, which even more important when communities were not involved in the prioritization of changes they are being asked to adopt.
  • Specifying target behaviours for CCAs entire peer group (or subsets thereof), may be easier for CCAs because it means the community engagement strategy, they use will be the same for their entire peer group, rather than potentially needing specific engagement strategies for each household could happen if each household instead selected their individual priorities for change.
  • Bringing the CCAs who work in similar local contexts and geographic locations together as a group to agree on the desired behaviours to promote to improve animal welfare, means they will be promoting similar changes and can more easily support and learn from each other’s experiences as the community engagement strategies will be similar across CCAs.
  • Involving CCAs who are representative of their target peer groups in this process ensures the perspectives of different groups, including those groups who are more marginalized or vulnerable, inform the prioritization of target behaviours and identification of support and resources needed to adopt changes. This will help the project consider the realities of the local context and different groups within the animal owning community, while also ensuring CCAs have some agency over what is being asked of them. At the very least, always ensure CCAs can provide feedback on the target behaviours, identified support and resources the community needs to support their adoption of new behaviours, and the related assumptions about the community used to identify them.
  • As the entire peer group in making the same changes, peer group capacity building/trainings can be used to support the entire peer group’s changes, as opposed to needing to be tailored to support each individual household.
  • Involving CCAs as a group in the selection of monitoring indicators will help ensure the project is monitoring results relevant from the perspective of representative of the community. In addition, monitoring may be easier for CCAs and the project using this approach than using a one-to-one household consultation approach, because similar indicators can be used to monitor across the target peer group rather than need be specific to each household.

Regardless of the process you choose, it is important to ensure a narrow focus rather than attempting to address all issues and related behaviours at once, and therefore recommended to focus on one to three behaviours per target group (e.g. men, women, owners, and carers) at a time to start [20]. However, once changes have been achieved, the process can be revisited and additional priorities for change identified.

2.2.3 Craft behaviour change statements

By the end of the prioritization process, the desired behavioural changes CCAs will support their target peers in adopting should then be precisely defined as behavioural change statements specifying what behaviours should be practiced (not what people should not be doing), including the following components:

  1. Who is taking action/adopting desired behaviour (priority target)
  2. What they will do/specific desired behaviour/action they will adopt
  3. Any other relevant details to the action to be taken…when, where how etc. (e.g. frequency, time, quantity, duration, place).

It is important these statements are clear so that the agreed desired changes which are expected to be achieved can be easily understood by the CCAs, their target peers, and the project. Example Behaviour Change Statements include:

  • Men within target peer group households provide donkeys with free access to sufficient clean and fresh water as recommended for their species and workloads whenever at home.
  • Women within target peer group households use a neck harness (rather than leg hobble) to tie their donkeys up whenever they are not in transit/working away from home during the day.

Fill out a table like the template provided in the facilitator resource “Behaviour Change Planning Table“ with information related to the priority group and desired behaviours.

Tools and resources helpful to supporting this step include:

PLA Tools
T33 Community Animal Welfare Needs Assessment
T34 Community Animal Welfare Action Planning
T9 Matrix ranking and scoring

Facilitator Resources
Behaviour Change Planning Table
Example of Five Domains of Animal Welfare for Donkeys Linked with Human Behaviour

Link to References Cited

Return to Approach
Related tools
T33 Community Animal Welfare Needs Analysis tools resized test 3 C3

T33 Community Animal Welfare Needs Analysis

T34 Community Animal Welfare Action Planning tools resized test 3 C3

T34 Community Animal Welfare Action Planning

T9 Matrix Ranking and Scoring tools resized test 3 C3

T9 Matrix Ranking and Scoring

Facilitator resources
9. Example of the Five Domains of Animal Welfare For Donkeys Linked with Human Behaviours FA resized C2

9. Example of the Five Domains of Animal Welfare For Donkeys Linked with Human Behaviours

12. Behaviour Change Planning Table FA resized C2

12. Behaviour Change Planning Table