Rats and Planning: The Case Study of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK by Dianne Kwene Odede

Jordan, 2019

An investigation of the strenuous negative relationship between humans and the brown rat species to inform planning in urban cities. The Case Study of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

150203982 Dianne Kwene Odede

Master of Science, Urban Planning 2020

Student Number: 150203982 Module: TCP8099 Dissertation Degree: Master of Science, Urban Planning: Green Infrastructure and Landscape Planning Pathway Word Count: 16,089 Year: 2019/20 Supervisor: Paola Gazzola

ABSTRACT Our globally rising population and increased urbanisation, viewed alongside thriving pest numbers; reveal the necessity to plan for sustainable management strategies for urban pest control; there is need for greater urgency amongst all people in approaching problem-solving methods now, rather than in future scenarios of detriment. This research focuses on the example of the brown rat, a pest strongly linked to the health and wellbeing of humans and domesticated animals. Knowledge, and the perception of expertise about this issue, requires more discussion and awareness. For example, the perceptions of where brown rats should be widely varies in responses, there is no absolute agreement nor prioritisation. What is undisputed in agreement is an ethical viewpoint in which efforts to minimise extermination of species deemed as pests are encouraged. For this research, such strategies that are specific to the brown rat and include innovative building and design considerations, early planning and management discussions, increased study of brown rat’s contribution and behaviour, and beneficial use of the species. The paper identifies strategies that could be promising for the future and considers the overall benefits of having rats around for better environmental management, relating successful buffering and co-habitation strategies for councils in the UK. The research also encourages further study of brown rats in forensics and working uses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS “Let them do hard work, doing good work with their hands, so that they may have something to share with someone in need” Thank you to all the participants, the eight interviewees, and to the university staff and my colleagues for making this possible, I could not thank you enough. Our beautiful planet now more so than before requires much care, and a little goes a long way; Environmental Urban Planning and Risk Management, is an important aspect and I honestly feel very privileged to have learned and had the opportunity to delve into such a niche topic as this. Thank you to the university for seeing me through my time here in Newcastle. Special thanks to Paola Gazzola, Sebastian Wise, Cat Button and Jane Midgely for going the extra mile and taking the initiative to ensure we had the morale to keep going during uncertain times. I hope this piece of work can be as informative to readers as it was enjoyable to write.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 The impact of urbanisation on the environment ................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 Why focus on pest species? .................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Linking environmental management with species interaction .......................................................................................... 7 1.4 Research aim and objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter 2: Theories and evidence on the benefits of having rats for better environmental management ......... 10 2.1 The growing increase in species interaction....................................................................................................................... 10 2.11 What is the situation with brown rats and human interaction today .......................................................................... 10 2.12 Why is the interaction significant for us as people, for our spaces ............................................................................. 11 2.13 Why worry about brown rats in urban areas more than other animal species .......................................................... 11 2.14 The impact of public perceptions .................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Defining pest species ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.21 What is a pest species and why are brown rats considered pest species .................................................................... 13 2.22 Why is extermination of brown rats is not the best solution ...................................................................................... 15 2.23 Are there viable and reasonable alternative to extermination ..................................................................................... 15 2.3 Environmental urban planning and the brown rat ........................................................................................................... 20 2.31 What angle do planners take at managing the environment with the presence of brown rats ............................... 20 2.32 How are different examples of environmental management for Brown rats planned ............................................ 20 Chapter 3: Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 3.1 Rationale for Mixed Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 23 3.11 Case study approach: NE1 ................................................................................................................................................ 23 3.2 Data collection ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25 3.21 Primary data: semi-structured interviews ........................................................................................................................ 25 3.22 Primary data: anonymous online surveys ....................................................................................................................... 26 3.23 Secondary data: maps, statistics, and legislation ............................................................................................................ 26 3.3 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.31 Phase 1 Interview analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 27 3.32 Phase 2 quantitative analysis of survey ........................................................................................................................... 28 3.33 Phase 3 qualitative analysis of survey and interviews ................................................................................................... 28 3.34 Phase 4 synthesis with secondary data ............................................................................................................................ 29

3.4 Research limitations .............................................................................................................................................................. 29 3.5 Ethical considerations ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Chapter 4: Findings and analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 31 4.1 Case Study: Current findings in NE1, Newcastle City Centre ........................................................................................ 31 4.11 Brown rats, primarily outdoors......................................................................................................................................... 32 4.12 Brown rats, cost incurred .................................................................................................................................................. 33 4.2 Necessary management of brown rats through planning for effectivity ....................................................................... 33 4.21 Extermination, still very much the standard .................................................................................................................. 33 4.22 Human-evaluation on brown rats and planning ........................................................................................................... 34 4.3 The great need for public opinion to be more informed by knowledge ....................................................................... 35 4.4 Bridging the disparity in public opinion and public knowledge ..................................................................................... 37 4.41 Setting an agreeable but feasible standard ...................................................................................................................... 38 4.42 Predation of roosting birds: tawny owls ......................................................................................................................... 39 4.43 No interest in rodent food source .................................................................................................................................. 39 Chapter 5: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................... 40 5.1 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................................................................. 40 5.11 Advice for local councils: a rationale behind a decision of public evaluation and participation ............................ 40 5.12 Predation as a management technique ............................................................................................................................ 40 5.2 Potential avenues for further research .............................................................................................................................. 41 5.21 Further exploration: relevant to this research ............................................................................................................... 40 5.22 Further exploration: working rats ................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendixes ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 6.1 Interview schedule and questions ...................................................................................................................................... 42 6.2 Survey questions ................................................................................................................................................................... 45 6.3 Survey graphs and charts ...................................................................................................................................................... 51 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Most pest call-out rates to UK councils ................................................................................................................ 21 Table 2: Rat council call-out charges in the UK ................................................................................................................. 21 Table 3: NE1 quick facts ............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 4: List of key informant interviewees .......................................................................................................................... 25 Table 5: Data analysis phases .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 6: Sample of thematic analysis of interviews ............................................................................................................. 27 Table 7: Sample of thematic analysis of interviews and survey ....................................................................................... 28 Table 8: Sample of thematic analysis of primary and secondary data .......................................................................... 29 Table 9: Difficulty in implementing design solutions ........................................................................................................ 34 Table 10: Positive, negative, and neutral views of brown rats from NE1 citizens ...................................................... 36

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Population density and urban population growth rate ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Rat behaviour and biology ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3: Recorded brown rat sightings in the UK 1961-2009 .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Global distribution of the brown rat in grey ........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 5: Impact of public experiences and perceptions on the productivity of local councils ............................. 12 Figure 6: American infographic on rat and mouse damage ............................................................................................ 13 Figure 7: Risk of disease to humans from rodents .............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 8: Brown and black rat population in the UK ......................................................................................................... 14 Figure 9: Figure 9 Benefits of rats for the global environment ........................................................................................ 15 Figure 10: Tawny owl nest box .................................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11: Raising public awareness of rat behaviour ....................................................................................................... 17 Figure 12: Consideration of landscaping in early design and planning stages .......................................................... 17 Figure 13: Risks and predicted effects of urban areas ....................................................................................................... 19 Figure 14: Rat call-outs in the UK ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 15: Rat call-out areas and numbers in Newcastle 2016 ......................................................................................... 23 Figure 16: Data extracted from MS Forms and charts generated on MS Excel ........................................................ 28 Figure 17: Public opinion and knowledge of rats ............................................................................................................... 31 Figure 18: Public opinion on overall responsibility ............................................................................................................. 32 Figure 19: Opinion of brown rats from the NE1 public .................................................................................................... 35 Figure 20: Response to pest management strategies respondents in NE1 .................................................................. 37 Figure 21: Opinion on where brown rats should be from respondents in NE1 ......................................................... 38

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE IMPACT OF URBANISATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT It is believed that one is always within the distance of a brown rat. In many areas, these creatures are mostly unseen by humans and preferred that way (German and Latkin, 2016). The relationship between the two species is a negative one; however, this research seeks to change the relationship to a more positive one by exploring the benefits of having rats around for better environmental management. Although man and rat have lived together for centuries, and the rat population in the UK remains relatively stable, increased human population densities in cities increase the proximity and tension between the two species (Sharp, 2007). There is a widespread acknowledgement that humans often provide rats with an abundance of supportive resources, favourable microclimatic conditions, and shelter from their natural predators (Lõhmus and Balbus, 2015). A statement writes that brown rats ‘are now so firmly associated with the human landscape that they are no longer known for certain in the wild state’ (Aplin et al., 2003, p.493). Thus, with the expectation of more people living in cities, a question arises whether there is a suitable place for brown rats in the urban UK today and whether attitudes towards them can change.

1.2 WHY FOCUS ON PESTS SPECIES? Brown rats are the most common and successful species of rat found in the UK (Sharp, 2007); they are often globally classed as a pest species. Pest species refer to a group of troublesome creatures which are harmful to humans and human structure; they harm us through direct contact which can cause sickness of mental health or/and physical injury, they also directly damage livestock, harvests, vegetation, and buildings (Meiwen et al., 2003). The brown rat is a particularly persistent pest species which significantly impacts economies, ecosystems, and public health; for example, consider that one-fifth of the world’s total food output is consumed, made unfit for consumption, or destroyed by rats (Shaikh, 2007, p.94). Planners and policymakers are thus urgently responding in managing the threat of pests to achieve safer food consumptions, living environments, and economic growth. This research does not undermine fatal hazards that brown rats pose, acknowledging the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 (PDPA) in the UK that directs local councils to take action which prevents harm. Fatal hazards include house fires and structural damage from the gnawing activity of brown rats, and more immediate are diseases they carry and spread, which significantly weaken our body function. The most common disease is Rat-bite fever which does not only require contact with a brown rat but also with what it has contaminated. Other diseases include hantavirus, which has no cure, and leptospirosis; both cause severe pain and discomfort and can ultimately cause death (Lõhmus and Balbus, 2015). The Act highlights the presence of rats must be reported to the relevant local council prioritising prevention and where necessary extermination. However, due to the brown rat's commensalism, that is the process in which the species gains from another species harm, it is often easy for people with little knowledge of brown rats to disregard that rats have adapted and function as part of the ecosystem, even as it may be in the urban ecosystem (Desvars-Larrive et al., 2018). Brown rats interact extensively with their environment, bringing in ecosystem engineering benefits such as pollination seed dispersal, and resource flow to organisms through burrowing, thus brown rats may have value as indicators of environmental change unexplored and obscure to us(Dickman, 1999).

1.3 LINKING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WITH SPECIES INTERACTION The most common responses to the management of brown rats in cities are guidance, buffering, and extermination methods. Alberta in Canada, a key example, is a province that prides itself in being free of these rats; extensively intense government rat control policies achieve this. In buffering the government still uses rat-proofing buildings today as a basic rat control method. In the past extermination method involved the use of rodenticides, bulldozers, poison gas, and

incendiaries (Government of Alberta, 2019); today it is less intensive although poisons in the form of anticoagulant baits are still used. The stance and use of poisonous rodenticides is argued against welfare issues it brings; despite this, most rodents, including brown rats, generally do not benefit from legal protection in the UK (RSPCA, 2019). Despite being unprotected, and even with free pest control services offered by some councils in the UK, only half the number of brown rat in the country are professionally treated (Meyer, 2003). An additional challenge for the council is the climate emergency; most councils are encouraged to increase the connectivity between green areas in modern cities, which would in turn also increase the opportunity for rat dispersal as brown rats have a high suspicion and alertness to change as well as benefiting in most vegetated environments. Rat dispersal highly carries the risk of spreading diseases; this is because risk of contact with people increases (Lõhmus and Balbus, 2015, p.4). In the UK rat control has involved various trapping methods and the use of rodenticides. However, rats are becoming increasingly resistant to rodenticides (Prescott, 2010), and the rodenticides pose a risk to non-target species, including humans (Amori and Clout, 2003). Thus, the extermination of brown rats, as a means to stop infestations is not a convenient lasting method in remedying the presence of rats in urban green spaces (Macdonald et al., 1999). Other approaches may be said to consider the betterment of the environment. Buffering is a preventive nonextermination management method that is becoming more used, due to the risk rodenticides pose and the overall high financial costs of extermination methods. Examples of buffering include the preventive design of landscape structures, sanitation of garbage areas and landfills, and reduction of food availability for brown rats (particularly vegetation excessive in fruit production) (Lõhmus and Balbus, 2015). To iterate the significance of sanitation, it is highlighted that although brown rats keep their nests relatively clean, human waste provides them with an incentive to thrive on scavenging and thus increases the risk of disease and infestation (Marris, 2019). In the UK, Newcastle City Council in their green infrastructure strategy, list the use of Green Infrastructure as environmentally beneficial in providing refuges and buffers from invasive species such as the brown rat. Urban parks, as a form of green infrastructure thus must be carefully planned, it has been noted that they can be relatively free from brown rats due to frequent use by people and the surrounding of heavy traffic and disturbances (Himsworth et al., 2014) however nocturnal activity and bush cover should also be considered. While extermination methods and buffering are broadly considered management methods, investigations into the ways that people co-habit with pests have been mainly absent in discussions (Power, 2007). Likely the lack of investigation in coexistence is marred by the concern and focus on the risk of diseases the species pose in the UK. However, negative attitudes are also frequently applied to the species, mainly because of the Black Plague. It is noted that ‘City inhabitants often believe they know more about rats than they actually do’ (Parsons et al., 2017). Recent research suggests that rats may not have been the leading cause of the plague, noting that other influences were to blame, speculatively human parasites (Bryda, 2013). The animal rights group, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, maintain that there are humane ways to manage and to live alongside rats, in which some councils have enforced although it is not a simple matter (RSPCA, 2017). Compassionate conservation competes with a utilitarian argument of biodiversity goals (Kinver, 2019), as different communities vary on the best way to handle the situation; for instance in an island of South Georgia brown rats were exterminated on a large scale project, with the priority of preventing the extinction of native birds (Martin, 2016). Thus, the numbers of the brown rat species may be seen to be more of a threat than their presence. Currently, researchers are looking towards infertility treatments to stop the widespread population growth of brown rat (Marris, 2019). Furthermore, brown rats have beneficially been used in; ethical laboratory research (Hamouda, 2018), therapy and as pets (Von Bergen, 2015), forensic detection (Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, 2013), general work such as caballing (Irvine, 1997), and as food (Mangoendihardjo and Wagiman,2003). This research thus looks to reviews buffering and co-habitation strategies applied by councils in the UK while considering the effect of extermination methods regarding this species. The attitudes held by the city residents will play a part in informing the level of awareness for this research.

1.4 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES This research aims to consider how the investigation of the strenuous negative relationship between humans and the brown rat species in urban cities can improve environmental management strategies for policymakers and planners. It includes a discussion of the role of building and environmental design, and potential co-habitation strategies through a case study analysis of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. The objectives of this study are: ▪ To determine the extent of the increasing threat that brown rats pose to people living in cities and the environment, and what problem that causes for urban planners and policymakers. ▪ To analyse attitudes of people in the UK, towards the benefits that brown rats can offer them; and thus benefits brown rats offer to the environment for human society. ▪ To analyse causes, impacts and responses of the PDPA in the UK. ▪ To explore building and environmental design use in pest management and to investigate co-habitation strategies that councils are using in the UK. ▪ To advance recommendations of alternative environmentally-friendly planning methods that UK councils can adopt in managing pests. The following research questions are kept to a minimum to allow for a clear focus on the research aim (Tarling, 2006). ▪ How does Newcastle compare to other UK cities in environmental planning strategies relating to the brown rat? ▪ How have building and environmental designs been used in planning strategies for pest management? ▪ Can any positive/ softened attitudes regarding brown rat be adopted into planning strategies? ▪ Should cities be designed to be more resistant to the brown rat? ▪ How feasible are the pest management methods provided by the council for individuals in Newcastle?

CHAPTER 2: THEORIES AND EVIDENCE ON THE BENEFITS OF HAVING RATS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2.1 THE GROWING INCREASE IN SPECIES INTERACTION 2.11 What is the situation with brown rats and human interaction today? This section discusses the existing relationship between brown rats and people. The correlation between urban areas population growth and rise in population density is visible; in the UK a majority 83% of the population live in urban areas and the countries density alongside this number continues to rise(Figures 1). Most research and experiences show that the population structure and density of brown rats are undoubtedly affected by such human activities in the environment today; mostly because of close habitation (Meiwen et al., 2003). This find, however, appears to be a more general overview, rather than an in-depth analysis; certainly, interaction between the species will differ by location, scope, among other catalyst influences. For example, brown rat densities have proven to be very low in tidy and clean houses (Zhang et al., 2002); this is guaranteed really by the fact that an alternative untidy and unvisited house exists. Viewing it thus from a different angle is to question, what if all houses today experienced the same regular levels of vigorous activity and sanitation. If an undisputed form of planning was executed and achieved, that is a planning method agreeable across different groups and local councils, would this still effectively deter brown rats from our growing urban areas? To answer this, it is essential not to ignore the species characteristics.

Figure 1 Population density and urban population growth rate

Today, the brown rat is understood to have various aspects of behaviour and biology(Figure 2) that facilitate its increase and survival, as well as the failure of many rodent control programmes, these include; enormous reproductive potential, trap avoidance, and adaptive feeding behaviour (Bonnefoy et al., 2008, p.28). This explains why urban areas draw these creatures; certainly, cities tend to have many hidden passageways, an abundance of food, and difficult access for the natural predators of the brown rats. The behaviour of these rats is widely acknowledged and agreed upon (William et al., 2003), and it informs us that their current situation is not getting worse, even despite momentarily reduced food sources for brown rats due to the Covid19 virus outbreak (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2020); the more we thrive, the more they thrive. This makes interaction with these creatures seem inevitable; and with that the brings the need to investigate and clarify the risks they pose (Meyer, 2003).

Figure 2 Rat behaviour and biology Source: Rentokil.com

2.12 Why is the interaction significant for us as people and for our spaces? The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) list brown rats as a species of least concern in conservation, meaning extermination would ideally still be appropriate in this sense where there are no risks of extinction (IUCN, 2020). With this acknowledgement, it may seem insignificant to thus conduct a study from a differing viewpoint and approach to the pest management of brown rats and their behaviour for the sake of better environments. However more is revealed in that least concern conservation status and the previous findings of growing urban density in 2.11; a conundrum exists because reasonably governments on local and national levels will aim for their countries and people to thrive, but not necessarily for the species to thrive. Yet we have concluded through increased urbanisation, brown rats also increase(Figure 3). The IUCN goes on to state in their statistics that brown rats are abundant in urban areas and are often present wherever humans are. This inadvertently makes it one of the most important species of urban wildlife; in time as density increases in packed cities, it is assured that if measures proceed as they are currently, people will become increasingly vulnerable to the company of brown rats and potential diseases (Meyer, 2003).

Figure 3 Recorded brown rat sightings UK 1961-2009 Source: GWCT National Gamebag Census & Tracking Mammals Partnership.com

This suggests that we may not be as in ‘control’ of the situation with brown rats as it appears to us. More so the latter means that ultimately the way we choose to plan and live now is a direct facilitator for how brown rats will continue to grow or reduce, and how they will be a part of our environments. Rather than deter them, with time currently in our favour, we should urgently look at other direct sustainable options. 2.13 Why worry about brown rats in urban areas more than other animal species? The proximity of brown rats to humans, earlier mentioned, is a key factor for worry. As urbanisation persists, we cannot avoid delaying the inevitable need to worry about these evasive creatures; studying them is thus a difficult but necessary task. Admittedly the research search results have revealed that it is not often questioned as to which specie poses the biggest threat to humanity in urban areas. What is instead built up is that ‘Invasive species’ as a whole are deemed threatening, in which the brown rat has spread to a global reach; the brown rat was originally native to south-east Siberia, north-east China and parts of Japan (IUCN, 2020). This worldwide range confirms the adaptability of brown rats and the importance of their consideration.

Figure 4 Global distribution of the brown rat in grey Source: Buckle and Smith, 2015

Another consideration is the knowledge and use of brown rats in research and innovation. These rats are one of the most dominant species in lab experimentation that have informed humans to date; however, a vast majority of studies are performed on bred and reared lab rats and may lend the false impression that we know more about urban rats than we truly do (William et al., 2003). There is not enough research on urban brown rats, yet these are the ones that come in frequent contact with people. Admittedly despite the rearing and breeding, the species has generated immense contributions in scientific and clinical research. Furthermore, it hosts lesser-known, but presumable benefits in urban areas (Aplin et al., 2003). These will be expanded on in section 2.23. Ultimately this shows much is yet to be known about the species; with an element of time to be concerned about.

2.14 The impact of public perceptions To ensure effective intervention strategies, it is crucial to appreciate the extent to which member of a public expanse experience rats as a problem and where they place responsibility of management (German and Latkin, 2016). First, however, the effect public perceptions have had on planning and the state of the brown rat today must be understood. In cities, many urban dwellers will have encountered rats, however, only a few rats are responsible for the collective public knowledge; when it comes to brown rats, city dwellers will most likely encounter the minority, those that are the boldest and the most desperate (Parsons et al., 2017). The unlikelihood of such encounters is confirmed by looking at the characteristics of this species; brown rats will likely occupy sewers, drains, as they prefer to move through below the surfaces rather than above ground or by climbing through trees (Williams et al., 2003). Admittedly, these are spaces we as humans rarely check, access, or frequent. With that in mind, it is clear to say that public opinion is not one without bias; however, it can inform research of the encounter locations and thus the numbers of existing brown rats in cities. This is revealed by findings of about 249 local councils in 2001, that utilised perceptions and experiences when completing surveys to inform rat control progression in the UK; majority of infestations were reported rather than not(Figure 5).

Figure 5 Impact of public experiences and perceptions on the productivity of local councils

As seen above, a majority cooperate and look to local councils when it comes to infestations; this may be attributed to the fact that in many western countries, including the UK, attitudes towards rats are primarily negative (Meyer-Rochow et al., 2015). Likely due to historical occurrences (Sullivan, 2005); the issue is best handled by councils who have legislative authority in overseeing such issues. While many people may not like rats, particularly and understandably those who have negatively been affected by them, there exist residents in some urban areas who are more tolerant of rats than others (Bonnefoy et al., 2008, p30). In the UK both attitudes have high significance because although it is the duty of local councils’ to supervise how brown rats are managed; control relies on public complaints as the first point of contact (Bonnefoy et al., 2008, p30); thus the lesser majority, but still significant unreported cases hinder proper management for the council. This suggests that there is a need to increase public understanding and knowledge of the species and their wider effects whilst maintaining wellbeing. Furthermore, given existing differing attitudes and growing ethical concerns in the UK over pest species, the viability of an approach where the problem is mitigated by shifting public perceptions (Dubois et al., 2017) will be explored in this research.

2.2 DEFINING PEST SPECIES 2.21 What is a pest species, and why are brown rats considered pest species? This section on to discuss a common term people use to identify brown rats today. Beyond being identified as an invasive species in some regions, the brown rat has in some countries been legally identified as a pest. The UK is one of those countries. As earlier introduced, a pest is generally identified as any specie injurious to human welfare and advancement. Admittedly, however, the distinction between ‘pest’ and ‘non-pest’ species is far from straightforward; for brown rats, this confusion derives from two uncertainties: ▪ ▪

Uncertainty over exactly which species are responsible for damage; can be other rodents(Figure 6). Uncertainty as to how brown rats affect indigenous species.

Figure 6 American Infographic on rat and mouse damage Source: National Pest Management Association, 2019

Further to the two listed uncertainties, a third consideration exists, which is that many species certainly have the potential to cause some level of damage or irritation. However, for brown rats, confusion soon undisputedly replaces consensus of what a pest species is when damage is intensively evident (Aplin et al. 2003). Often enough one damaging aspect explored is disease(Figure 7), as rats may carry more than forty different diseases; however, the occurrence of diseases is lower among urban rats (German and Latkin, 2016). Furthermore, as more is uncovered, one realises that there is an uncertainty to the real damage brown rats cause (Williams et al., 2003) as most harmful effects originate in unsanitary environments that humans create; such environments include areas of litter and refuse storage, defective sewers and structures, and places where residents feed species (Murphy and Oldbury, 2002). Thus, the planning and design of our environments should certainly be evaluated regarding their role in encouraging species to cause irritation and damage.

Figure 7 Risk of disease to humans from rodents Source: Rentokil.com

Although the PDPA was established in 1949, for a long time following its establishment, there was almost no quantitative data available on the amount of damage caused by rodents in the UK (Putman, 1989, p.22). One must keep in mind that local councils do not have everyday access to ones private property which makes it difficult to manage and monitor a space. Although that problem still exists today, local councils have been able to gather and store more data in comparison to before; unfortunately, the problem of pest management is still of low priority and is usually more so addressed in moments of infestations and public reports (Murphy and Marshall, 2003). Evidence of such infestations and public reports confirm that substantial infestations have been exemplified as problematic indicators of poor environmental quality (Bonnefoy et al., 2008, p.31); brown rat population numbers are thus indicative and can assist councils on the awareness of environmental quality and loopholes in planning and design. Thus, councils must crucially be aware of brown rat populations. Admittedly thus becomes difficult to estimate the number rats in general in the UK, as not only may public responses be inaccurate, but the numbers are also highly susceptible to change in months and years thus this research works with analysed figured where a majority of the brown rats are said to exist in sewers(Figure 8)

Figure 8 Brown and black rat population in the UK Source: Metex, 2013

Ultimately this research identifies that attention to the species and the need for planning with them in mind is slowly being recognised with the legislative ‘pest’ status playing a part in inciting urgency. The consequence of the labelling of the brown rat as a pest cannot be ignored, as it has had some dire effects that will be discussed in the next section.

2.22 Why is extermination of brown rats is not the best solution? The status of brown rats as pests notably directs attention to the species as a cause for human-wildlife conflict. Humanwildlife conflicts are addressed through exclusion, trapping, hunting, or otherwise exterminating the conflict animal. At times these approaches can have inadvertent effects on non-target animals and ecosystems; thus there has been active acknowledgement of the need for evidence-based and ethical approaches to managing such conflicts (Dubois et al., 2017.). Despite the acknowledgement, to date, rat eradication efforts still primarily focus on extermination strategies leading to an overreliance on this approach; extermination is a pest control solution that includes several methods of killing rats. Rodenticides, for example, are immediate economic and practical answers to urban infestations; however, they are often not sustainable because they may have unknown environmental consequences and do not address environmental conditions that attract and foster rats (German and Latkin, 2016). To express the snowball effect of such methods the example of brown rats as key prey species for local predators is given; many people use a toxic bait to kill unwanted brown rats, such baits contain chemicals, called anticoagulants, which cause the rodents to die slowly and painfully from internal bleeding. A recent Australian study showed that over 70% of dead and dying boobook owls sampled had been exposed to rodent anticoagulants (RSPCA, 2020); furthermore, brown rats are becoming strongly resistant to rodenticides, and they learn to easily avoid baits once one rat has been affected (BCPA, 2018). Such inadvertent effects play a role alongside a prime reason for averting from extermination as a key solution for this research; a statement well expressed by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health highlights this in the next paragraph (CIEH). The CIEH state that rodent problems, inclusive of damage by brown rats, should be seen as a symptom of a vulnerable and, more often than not, a degraded urban environment; meaning when brown rats are treated with pest control solutions, only a symptom is handled. The aim should be towards sustainable long-term, approaches for improving urban environments while reducing economic disadvantage (Bonnefoy et al., 2008, p31). It is not necessarily rodents that are the problem but the state of the urban environment itself. Furthermore, pest management in urban ecosystems benefits from greater knowledge of the biology of the target pests (Zhu et al., 2016); if the target is eradicated then there is no informative target to examine, and progression is hampered. One may argue whether there is genuinely any information to find; the next section considers what we know of the species and what is yet to be explored. 2.23 Are there viable and reasonable alternative to extermination? So far, the destructiveness of rats has been reviewed; conclusively they are proven to be responsible for more human suffering than any other vertebrates group, except ourselveshumans as a species (Aplin et al., 2003). As earlier stated, there is limited knowledge of the contribution of brown rats in the urban ecology; however, there are plenty of benefits of having rats exist for the global benefit(Figure 9).

Figure 9 Benefits of rats for the global environment Source: Metex

Research on pest species in the wild have been shown to reveal significant advances in the understanding of fundamental ecological processes, for example, it is known that these animals contribute to aeration of the soil due to digging burrows. When foraging, they disperse seeds of numerous plants; furthermore, their contribution to food chains was noted, thus

sustaining the ecosystem (Parsons et al., 2017). Earlier it was acknowledged that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human-wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence (Dubois et al., 2017) Since there seem to be no known benefits in allowing rats into cities three approaches are encouraged in this research: ▪ Minimising brown rats in urban neighbourhoods through innovative architecture and landscaping. ▪ Rethinking the necessity, use, and function of cities as a part of human society to address the problems of food spillage, animal waste, and storage. ▪ Rethinking and restructuring the management of the species in response to better urban planning (Willims et al., 2003)(Murphy and Oldbury, 2002) How can this be achieved? Physical methods have long been recognised as effective for reducing the impact of rodents; in cities, live-trapping and physical barriers (mechanical proofing inside and outside buildings) are examples of such methods used to control brown rats. Listed are additional considerations that could be implemented across the UK (Singleton et al., 1999): ▪ Increasing nesting boxes for natural predators ▪ Rat proofing ▪ Use of working rats ▪ Rat farming and rat meat The approaches are examined for viability. Increasing nesting boxes for natural predators Section 2.11 mentioned rats like cities, one of the reasons being that there are not many opportunities for their natural predators to flourish. That in mind, it has been accepted that promotion of predators can increase the effectiveness of ecologically based rodent management (Mangoendihardjo and Wagiman, 2003). Ecologically-based rodent management is more favourable as reports of anticoagulant residues in non-target predator species that have eaten brown rats have been noted as a concern (Fisher et al., 2003). As predators are becoming fewer and fewer, there is a need to aid their numbers (Mangoendihardjo and Wagiman, 2003), and given the growing resistance of brown rats to poisons discussed in 2.22, this shows the need to reduce use of poisons. The most promising predators for controlling brown rats, having shown successful control results in agricultural fields are avian; however there is little being done to encourage their breeding (Ojwang and Oguge, 2003), admittedly there is also a need for testing such success rates in urban areas. The use of the owls has been suggested to put pressure on rats and thus suppress damage by encouraging roosting and nesting places; with the lack of owls being attributed to a lack of nesting sites (Singleton et al., 2003). Tawny owls are the most common owl species in the UK, they are adaptive to human activity and urban areas, favourably where there are trees(Figure 10); despite this, they are listed amber (second most critical group) listed as a conservation concern species in the UK due to range declines (The Barn Owl Trust, 2015). As nesting boxes have successfully been used for population management of predator species like these owls, it would be interesting to consider their effect on prey species like brown rats. To know Figure 10 Tawny owl nest box the precise effect, the viability of such processes should be Source: Royal Society for the tested. For this research, the unprovoked public opinion on the Protection of Birds Forum presence of nesting boxes in urban areas will be obtained.

Rat proofing Rat proofing in cities refers to methods used, particularly in buildings to deter and repel rats but includes any additional methods that disallow their entry (Dhaar and Robbani, 2006). Such methods include using anti-chewing and anti-climbing material for structures and storages, ultrasound and electromagnetic devices, planting selective vegetation, non-lethal electric fences, diversion feeding, and barring passageways (Buckle and Smith, 2015). When it comes to public matters, an American case study reveals that public awareness programs(Figure 11) greatly enhanced public involvement in rat proofing their homes on private land, and monitoring for rat activity (Nolte et al., 2003). This Figure 11 Raising public awareness of rat behaviour was achieved by issuing a news release that urged citizens to cover trash containers, use rat-proof containers to store food items, eliminate rat access to pet foods, pick up fallen citrus, and harvest fruits remaining on trees. The release also announced a public meeting scheduled to explain the rat ecology and to address public questions. Such activity showed willing engagement when facilitation was organised. It is expressed, however, that much of the public do not consider proofing of buildings to prevent rodent entry as cost-effective, even when it can be (Cowan et al. 2003). A significant point, however, that was highlighted in 2.21, is that brown rats are not often found in homes but more so in considerable numbers within sewer systems of cities (Buckle and Smith, 2015, p.21).

Figure 12 Consideration of landscaping in early design and planning stages Source: Acheta.co.uk

The reliance on this effectiveness then heavily relies on initial design and planning(Figure 12) not only of buildings but the grounds of cities. For a long time, it has been stated that all new buildings should be made rat proof from the initial surveying and drawing up of plans with the behaviour of rats being kept in mind (Silver et al., 1942); the practicality of this on a grander scale is often overlooked and underprioritised. The PDPA legislation holds local councils responsible for overseeing that citizens keep land free from rats; thus, local policies from local councils may be an avenue in facilitating such conversations and implementations.

Rat farming and rat meat Rats are argued to be a credible food source given their widespread global nature, and problem of food poverty in the world; more problematic is a reluctant western attitude, and lack of global knowledge towards common brown rats as a food source(Meyer-Rochow et al. 2015). Admittedly even the west is not immune to problems of food security, and clean rats can very well be eaten and controlled. Expectedly, sewer rats should be avoided as food except in absolute dire desperation; sanitary controlled rats are understandably the better option (Harrison, 2013). This is understandable due to the contents sewer rats ingest; it is preferable much in the same way one would eat reared pigs. Considering they are not a threatened species in conservation, as discussed in section 2.12, this use would be beneficial in managing numbers and preventing damage. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations have listed rodents, including rats which are slightly become more socially acceptable as meat, as potential food sources to ail several problems mainly to increase food production by 70% to feed the world in 2050 and to reduce detrimental meat consumption to avoid further global warming (Hedenus et al., 2014). This shows a high-level awareness of time, accelerated urbanisation, and increased human-wildlife interaction. Rats farms and live stocking (Peters, 1988) are now being taken seriously as future societal considerations (Cawthorn and Hoffman, 2014). Conclusively it has been said that the risk of contracting diseases is not in eating the meat after it has been well-cooked, the problem itself lies in the act of preparing the prey of due to the likelihood and risk of being exposed to contaminated blood and other fluids (Gruber, 2016). Keeping in mind that for consumption, such rodents should be thoroughly cooked at high temperatures (Antolin, 2006), this is the primary reason for the warning to avoid sewer rats; however considering those in poverty laden environments take risks without many advancements, the consideration of testing the possible cleaning and cooking rats should be considered in the Western sphere. This is more so a situation of overcoming reluctance and a cultural norm; after all, would it not be seem sensible to sanitise and rare rats, rather than reap the damage they cause. Seeing as such suggestions with the potential to sway attitudes are already being pushed forward on national media such as BBC (Gruber, 2015). This research will look to test just how flexible attitudes currently are towards this suggestion. Working rats and rethinking management and spaces Brown rats are highly intelligent animals with excellent memory, they can learn their name, perform various tricks, and they have a well-developed sense of taste. Despite this, little use for them is seen urban areas besides for research and as pets at home (IUCN, 2020). They were momentarily tested for forensic use in 2013, however, no updates have been mentioned since; Mark Wiebes head of the Dutch police innovation centre mentioned, “As far as we know we're the first in the world to train rats to be used in police investigations” (Delaunay, 2013). Similarly, the case of Dr Judy Reavis training a rat to pave through walls, dragging string to pull computer wires; has had no follow-ups (Irvine, 1997). While it was mentioned that rats would not replace existing working animals, like police dogs due to deferring characteristics, i.e. that dog is a natural predator, and so is not afraid to explore unfamiliar places; it was mentioned that the inverse is also true. Rats have characteristics to offer that can complement other working animals. Currently, rats are being examined, alongside other urban wildlife, as bioindicators. By occupying the same environment as majority of the human population, rats can be useful informants on how the environments we are shaping are affecting our health and futures (Gruber, 2015); giving us indication of urgency (Desoky, 2019) and whether our places and spaces are being fashioned in the best way. As identified in section 2.21, rat populations are severely problematic in many modern cities and can cause harm to humans. Rather than looking at the species though, more insight may be gained from instead looking into environmental planning and design (Lõhmus et al. 2015). When it comes to cities, these locations have proved useful in gathering surveillance, and allowing for fast accessibility and communications for pest management; noise and activity in areas also sometimes serve in deterring rats from appearing (Dhang, 2011). However, while bustle and activity of people keep urban rats away, quiet spaces like urban parks and underground passages do not. Shrinking cities and dispersing populations have been suggested to minimise risks that exist in cities today (Hollander, 2011); examples of these suggestions were discussed, they included reducing contact with brown rats and opening spaces

to accommodate more natural predators. Authors argue that small can be beautiful as it allows for effective implementation of green infrastructure into cities (Schilling and Logan, 2008) as well as improving neighbourhood quality for humans and animals (Tabuchi et al., 2005). The risk with the increase in the size of cities comes with concern over increased concentrations of heavy metals and persistent substances in urban air, water, and soil. Even if pollution reduction techniques, the question still arises as to when such increases will start to have a detrimental effect on natural cycles and organisms. Furthermore, following the outbreak of Covid19 a call for global cooperation for sustainable urban transitions, which include smart shrinking, has been stressed by the World Health Organisation given unprecedented economic, social, and environmental long-term effects of virus(Figure 13). Thus, the attempt to smart shrinkage of cities is not a farfetched one (Brunner, 2007).

Figure 13: Risks and predicted effects of urban areas Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) www.cisl.cam.ac.uk

The difficulty with this approach is that urban policymakers and planners tend to view population decline negatively (Hollander, 2011) in the UK this is evident in funding infrastructure and regulations to raise economies (NPPF, 2018). Smart decline, that is planning effectively for shrinking cities and populations by leaving behind assumptions of growth, is admittedly a departure from the traditional role of planners (Popper and Popper, 2002). As such cities see spaces open up, this holistically paves the way for much desired open green spaces (Schilling and Logan, 2008) that are difficult to fit in today’s cities. Given that most people live in cities, this research will look to assess attitudes towards moving to more open areas, given a possible encounter with brown rats in comparison to the latter discussion.

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL URBAN PLANNING AND THE BROWN RAT 2.31 What angle do planners take at managing the environment with the presence of brown rats? This research agrees with the definition of environmental management in planning as a collective of statements. Environmental management is the process of making decisions for communities (or a community), to enable beneficial land use with an awareness of the existing natural environment (Beatley, 1995); in the UK planners do this in juxtaposition with social and economic factors; in order to provide a guide for achieving the most beneficial outcomes for current and future generations (NPPF, 2018). The PDPA explains local councils should, as practicable as possible, keep areas free from rats by regularly carrying out inspections and destroying rats in the area, and enforcing duties on owners and occupiers of land. From this, one can understand that the PDPA does not explicitly focus on the evaluation of how rats affect areas, as they have been associated with detriment, more so the goal is to minimise their presence. The PDPA serves in ensuring the public do not make uninformed decisions by putting local councils in a dominant position when it comes to rat management; however, this is kept within their local boundary. Despite the governing position of local councils, it is noted that control strategies of most councils in the UK are limited to a reactive strategy of responding to complaints, with the assumption that a lack of complaints indicates an absence of brown rats (Bonnefoy et al., 2008, p30). This rationale is flawed by the fact that brown rats exist in unseen areas where regular movements go unnoticed, notably in sewage system defects. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to deciding what level of infestation, if any, represents satisfactory control; it has been suggested that where the infestation rate is 1% or less, it is not worthwhile adopting a structured approach (Bonnefoy et al., 2008, p30). This implies that local councils have adequate information on which to make that assessment. While complaints are not a reliably indicative method of gathering brown rat, it was earlier concluded they are indicative of effects by rat populations. Given the point mentioned in 2.14 that a lack of facts affects rodent control programmes, more effort should be put in determining the actual numbers and populations in harmony with calls for greater ecological research. 2.32 How are different examples of environmental management for brown rats planned in the UK? This section reviews how different councils fare in their management and whether significant differences exist. Rats, alongside mice, are legally introduced in the first part of the PDPA and span over 12 sections. The local councils are responsible for areas earlier explored which rats can be found in abundance, particularly sewer systems (Murphy and Oldbury, 2002). The difficulty that comes with management of an area is that local councils can be affected by bordering local councils’ decisions and activities in rat management. Local councils across the UK aim to fulfil legal duties of improving public health the PDPA imposes. Their techniques defer in scale and frequency (Murphy and Oldbury, 2002); however, through their websites today, most councils reveal use of similar methods. These include providing description and characteristics of brown rats, advising citizens on how to keep their homes free of brown rats, and providing rodent control service teams (BCPA, 2018). These services are always open however when it comes regular management of private property many local councils list that it is the responsibility of the owner or occupier to control brown rats on their premises; however if an infestation breaks out, it must be reported. The local councils thus show targeting of private property more so than public property, when it comes to public reach and awareness. Furthermore, this partial consideration shows that urban pest control is often still viewed as a low priority; with the PDPA being proof that severe outbreaks and damage are the drivers to provide incentives for more consideration (Murphy and Marshall, 2003).

Attesting to the focus on private property is Table 1, a regular collection of data showing UK cities where pest call-out numbers record pest control. Newcastle was ranked 5th of all UK cities, with the North of the country generating the most reports to their respective councils. The results record only the number of reports; thus only confirming people who find enough reason to make reports to the council. More detail on the nature of these reports would be more useful in explaining whether it is negative or positive to be ranked as first on the most call-outs as we know rats undoubtedly and abundantly roam our cities; so whether this is more or less towards the step of being ‘rat-free’ as phrased in the PDPA is unclear. Council Liverpool City Council Sunderland City Council Dundee City Council City and Council of Swansea Newcastle City Council Stoke-on-Trent City Council Manchester City Council Birmingham City Council

Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 -

Region North West England North East England Scotland Wales North East England West Midlands England North West England West Midlands England

Table 1: Most pest call-out rates to UK councils Sources: BCPA National Survey 2013

Following the previous paragraph, the call-out responses have been regularly recorded with the latest data being from 2016. Table 2 captures this data showing that in three years Newcastle and Dundee have significantly ‘improved’ (Nsubuga, 2019). However the phrasing ‘improved is not representative of the full scenario given councils still adhere to similar reactive strategies, and charges and additional factors likely are what affect call-out and ranking numbers, as rodent numbers remain relatively stable (IUCN, 2020). Considerating section 2.31, where councils are encouraged to be more initiative, the research must introduce a balanced suggestion of using surveillance more effectively, to identify contribution of brown rats in their areas, both good and bad. Surveillance also acts as an indicator of the effectiveness of urban infrastructure, and can show needed improvement in the landscape management of waste, building repairs, sewers, and drains, and reduced and general inspection areas (Bonnefoy et al., 2008, p31); thus telling how effective planning is. Council Newcastle City Council City and Council of Swansea Stoke-on-Trent City Council Sunderland City Council Manchester Council Birmingham City Council Liverpool City Council Dundee City Council

Ranking 3 5 1 4 2 -

Charge For up to 3 treatments £84 Free domestic, £66 commercial For up to 3 treatments £60 For up to 3 treatments £51.25 For up to 3 visits £41 Free Free Unclear Charges

Table 2: Rat Council Call-Out charges in the UK Sources: BCPA National Survey 2016, Local Authority Websites

Region North East England Wales West Midlands England North East England North West England West Midlands England North West England Scotland

Figure 14 Rat call-outs in the UK Source: BCPA National Survey 2016

Overall, rats continue to be the most popular pest call-outs for UK local councils. As mentioned, rat numbers are generally stable; however, the call-out rates have fluctuated over the years, with fewer people reporting rats compared to ten years ago(Figure 14). Other indicative changes that occurred in this period are recorded in the BCPA National Surveys and by the CIEH: ▪ Reduction in Local Council Pest Control Services: Although majority of local councils offer pest control services, data suggests this is gradually reducing because of austerity measures ▪ Charges in Pest Control Services: Over the years more authorities have charged for pest control significantly, however as of 2013 this seems to be declining ▪ Scrapping of Pest Control Services: The public is generally unaware of the reality that local pest control services are being discontinued, cut, and contracted to other businesses by most councils. People still believe their first line of contact for pest-related problems is their local council. This research thus considers attitudes and actors that influence planners and legislators most to evaluate whether problems can be mitigated by examining and changing human behaviour (Dubois et al., 2017); the actors are city inhabitants, pest management services, and researchers.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 3.1 RATIONALE FOR MIXED METHODOLOGY The previous chapter’s literature review informed several possible avenues for this research. There are two crucial parts of the research question the methodology must cover. The first part is statistically ensuring data captures just how much knowledge of co-habitation planning strategies, and environmental design, participants, have. The second part ensures a comparison between the level of knowledge participants have and the attitudes they hold to reveal the type of correlations. To answer these questions, a mixed methodology is considered a suitable pursuit; this is because the procedure ensures that the suggestions from results have a basis; thus it aided in determining just how feasible policy and planning approaches are for increasing public knowledge and engagement (Reiter et al.,1999). The study aims to include participants from two groups and will explore this through a case study: ▪ A survey will be conducted for a random sample of city frequenters ▪ Interviews will be conducted for a select sample of active researchers and pest managers 3.31 Case study approach: NE1 To validate the detail of the mixed methodology, a case study approach will further be pursued. A case study approach allows for research beyond theory; thus data can be interpreted and analysed by the researcher from accessible accounts of real individuals in real-time attesting to what can be learned from a local situation (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2006). Newcastle Upon Tyne, a city located in the North East was the chosen location for this study, because it relates to the study through the concern of being amongst the fastest-growing cities in the UK, economically and in population (United Nations, 2018). Additionally, was the consideration that the British Pest Control Association ranked Newcastle as the city with the highest numbers of call-outs per 1000 people received in 2015 for pest control management. Newcastle ranked above larger cities such as London, and has since proved to show significant improvement in ranking (Nsubuga, 2019); thus the evaluation following improvement was opportune for the case study in gauging for flexibility in attitudes and knowledge in management strategies (German and Latkin, 2016).

Figure 15: Rat call-out areas and numbers in Newcastle 2016 Source: Pest Pro Environmental Services Ltd, Image adapted from the Chronicle

There is no representative data on city centre call-outs, for the NE1 boundary, that can reveal immediate existing attitudes and experiences of the public frequenters of that area; nearby areas which are primarily residential indicate high activity particularly NE6 which faces greatest socio-economic issues(Figure 15). To understand the researcher gathered

comparative experiences, attitudes, and opinions of NE1. The NE1 ward boundary was recently changed in 2018 to a new one under the name Monument Ward which lacks population data; due to this the NE1 Westgate boundary was assumed for this research along with 2011 census data. The information was necessary for establishing a representative sample number; “The Urban Rat Study” indicates that for between 3,000 and 10,000 (Table 3) in an area 450 results should be obtained for a representative study (Davis et al., 1974, p.2). Location NE1

Households

Immediate Data Total Premises: 5984 Pop Density: 261.88 Persons per Hectare Total Frequenting Population >10,059 Total Households: 4,869 Pop Density: 39.40 Persons per Hectare Total Population: 10,059

Data for Synthesis

High Satisfaction rate in Standard of Living High Employability and Activity

Responsibility 90% of census respondents believe locals should take responsibility for looking after the local area 57% know where to go to raise an issue or get help to deal with a problem in the local area 54% are willing to work together to improve this local area 23% believe that people in the area pull together to improve the local area 18% agree that they can influence decisions in the local area Safety 74 % feel safe in NE1, whereas only 59% feel safe in Newcastle as a whole Table 3: NE1 quick facts Source: Postcode Address File, Newcastle 2016 Census, NE1 Annual Report 2016-17

The surveys aimed to be as representative as possible of the public’s consciousness of rat management, and thus fair numbers with population were vital (Reiter et al.,1999); thus given restriction around movement and contact due to the Covid19 virus, a city-wide approach was not followed. Instead, the recommendation of a smaller coverage vicinity was conducted on the heavily urbanised area(2.4km2) for a random sample of 450 people in the city centre (NE1) of Newcastle (Davis et al., 1974, p.2). The survey was electronically shared between May and July 2020. The literature review derived similarities in Western attitudes (Meyer-Rochow et al., 2015) hence purposive sampling was conducted to obtain Western professionals as interviewees with levels of accurate real-time knowledge; this was based on the recommendation for action research within a mixed methodology (Allen et al., 2013). Action research is an interactive approach to knowledge and inquiry forging a direct link between collaborative intellectual knowledge and social action, in the case of this research, public knowledge and perception. Action research aims to contribute directly to the thriving of people, their communities, and their ecosystems. The method generated critical reflection and encouraged active involvement in suggestions towards this writing. It was chosen as an economical means to best meet time and financial constraints of facing multidisciplinary research. To conclude, all the different elements, thus best led to the research utilising a mixed methodology as it interlocked multiple philosophical perspectives, by allowing for integration of different theories and ideas of management. The mixed methodology enhanced strengths of both qualitative and quantitative data providing a broader perspective on the overall issue. A comprehensive view was essential as the focus on planning for brown rats has been niche and lacking attention. The research used a quantitative method to confirm and disconfirm statements; a qualitative study then ensued similarly, but it additionally provided delicate details behind the statements. Additionally, with consideration to Covid19, it was essential to deduce an effective methodology; a mixed methodology ensured that the production of data was rich despite limited time and circumstances (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2006).

3.2 DATA COLLECTION A majority of data collection methods on rat management are based and concerned with rural examples due to the high risk of extensive crop damage (Singleton et al., 2003). The research kept such preferred methods but also considered methods in the “The Urban Rat Study” (Davis et al., 1974, p.2) which has been used as a successful, informative prototype for modification to inform selection of appropriate samples, locations, and questions (de Masi et al., 2009). There were no significant differences in data collection methods, semi-structured interviews and surveys were the most used for deriving informative strategies; alongside this secondary information from Newcastle Council and NE1 Limited was used to inform census statistics in the duration of this research. 3.21 Primary data: semi-structured interviews The goal of the semi-structured interviews was to understand the variations in each participant’s experience of evidencebased practice. The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews where she was able to ask specific major questions, alter sequences, and ask for unplanned relevant information as conversation unfolded. A pre-planned guide for the interview was used to ask participants somewhat focused but mostly open-ended about the research aim; this allowed informants to discuss issues more freely than they could with the closed/forced-choice questions (Singleton et al., 2003, pp.396, 411.). In-depth interviews were to include four or more participants regularly involved with management of the brown rat, with the number of questions being heavily dependent on the interview purpose within pest management (Singleton et al., 2003,). All questions asked did include aspects modified from the “The Urban Rat Study” (Davis et al., 1974). The face-to-face interviews were conducted over Zoom Video Communications for a maximum of one hour. The researcher gathered participants from a purposive sample set, who generally discern the process of pest control from a pest-centred view instead of a pesticide-centred bias; these individuals were to meet the criteria of training and experience in a related discipline of urban studies that identified with an academic scientific culture (Green and Breisch 2002). The following participants met such criteria, an informed background. They were available for an interview in the duration of time and are active in their current fields which give insight on the brown rat in cities like Newcastle: Participant

Relevant Field of Study *Names have been altered to keep the participants' identity private

Adam Grogan RSPCA Dr Amélie Desvars-Larrive Dr Bobby Corrigan Dr Chris Dickman Dee Ward-Thompson, BCPA Dr Peter Banks Miwa* Bluu*

Wildlife and Policy Oversight Veterinary Medicine (Epidemiology, Rat-Borne Diseases) Urban Rodentologist Mammologist and Terrestrial Ecologist Pest Management, Operational Quality and Food Safety Wildlife, Conservation, Animal behaviour and ecophysiology Active education and experience Urban Rat Ecology Active education and experience Urban Rat Ecology Table 4: List of key informant interviewees

To aid analysis, the interviews were audiotaped, and summaries were produced for review from the participants; this proved useful for the data triangulation in the analysis stages. The interviews took place in June and July, at times suitable to the interviewees. Appendix 6.1 summarises the interview schedule, which covered encouraging and allowed for considerable flexibility in the interviewees' responses to facilitate innovations (Bryman, 2016).

3.22 Primary data: anonymous online surveys Sampling occurred electronically primarily through emails sent out randomly through Survey Circle and published on Newcastle City forum platforms (on several social media and non-social media websites); it was expected that once the target 450 participant responses were gathered the survey would close; however, the target achieved was 197. This data primarily derived justifications on whether people in NE1 experienced brown rats as a problem and where they placed responsibility of management (German and Latkin, 2016). The surveys were prepared, filled, and data retrieved using Microsoft Outlook Forms. The form included 11 different kinds of questions (open, multiple-choice, Likert-scale and Boolean) and took approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. As seen in Appendix 6.2, it covered (Bryman, 2016): ▪ General questions on well-being ▪ Likert Scale questions for awareness and knowledge concerning brown rat pests and their regulation. ▪ Perceptions and opinions on interventions for brown rat as pests. 3.23 Secondary data: maps, statistics, and legislation The secondary data retrieved was mainly qualitative, but some quantitative data was included. This secondary data was embedded to justify analysis of primary data thus giving a more holistic view of the conventional rules of society and human behaviour; thus quality of the results was improved (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2006). Maps and statistics were vital for this research because they provided details about the site that the researcher could not due to global health restrictions on movement. Maps and charts were fast and effective representations of data, proving to be valuable for time management (Singleton et al., 2003, pp.230). Data was extraction from Newcastle Council’s website and NE1 Limited on percentages and figures of experiences and attitudes relevant to discussions in the literature view; figures obtained included rat call-out numbers, satisfaction ratings, responsibility ratings, hygiene ratings, premises numbers, and frequent population obtained through the examination of a case study on local councils in the UK (Murphy and Oldbury Case Study, 2002). Qualitative comments under the maps and charts from Newcastle Council and other commentators were carefully considered in relevance to the interviews and survey questions.

3.3 DATA ANALYSIS The research proceeded to use a mixed-methods data analysis that thematically and measurably analysed the qualitative and quantitative data retrieved and then visualised in different phases (Kara, 2015). The analysis was case-oriented representing the postal code NE1 with suggestions associated with rat control and planning relevant to the area (Onwuegbuzie and Combs, 2011). The analysis followed a convergent parallel design (Table 5) in which qualitative and quantitative data were collected around the same duration and then used collectively to triangulate findings that answered the research question. Triangulation was a valuable tool that balanced weaknesses and strengths of collected data allowing the reach of conclusions (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2006). Data Collection

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Surveys May June July Interviews June July

Interview Analysis

Quantitative Analysis of Survey

Qualitative Analysis of the two sets of data (Surveys and Interviews) to determine links and differences.

Interpretation of results from combining the data sets

Table 5: Data analysis phases

3.31 Phase 1 interview analysis The data collected from the interviews were first thematically analysed to identify keywords that appeared, and thus the first set of primary data was created; it would later be analysed alongside retrieved primary data from the surveys.

Table 6: Sample of thematic analysis of interviews

3:32 Phase 2 quantitative analysis of survey In this stage, the second set of primary data from the survey was quantitatively analysed. This stage is vital in deducing facts from the data sets in which intangible subjects such as trust and intuition were well investigated through the creative use of quantitative methods (Kara, 2015). Quantitative data was useful in determining whether data was largely subjective or not, as it was measurable. Quantitative data ordinally aims to gather the highest frequency of occurrences in responses to questions. The data was counted and visualised on MS Forms and MS Excel to enable further checking against secondary data (Onwuegbuzie and Combs, 2011).

Figure 16: Data extracted from MS Forms and charts generated on MS Excel

3.33 Phase 3 qualitative analysis of survey and interviews The study then employed an analysis of the combination of data from the interviews and surveys simultaneously. This stage was conducted at this point because it allowed the researcher to thematically analyse already familiar data from Phase 1 and 2, in a new sense of determining changes in conclusions and unique viewpoints and suggestions (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2006). Data from the surveys and interviews were cross-tabulated and triangulated to identify any relationships; this aimed to more strongly identified initial themes from the literature review that enabled an organised framework to be built (Himsworth et al., 2014); this thematic matrix meant data could be validly labelled in seven categories of similar content. Below an analysis of two of the seven themes are shown: Theme

Interviews

Level of Knowledge of Brown Rats? One Word Description

Average 7.5/10 All agreed on having a level of knowledge beyond the general public; there were mixed opinions on defining a level of expertise, and thus can be attributed to the fact that despite existing knowledge not much is known about brown rats in urban environments so there is much insight to be gained from such exploration

Survey (with ‘other’ answers) Average 2.82/10 The public response ranged with the majority, not knowing, or liking rats. There were mixed opinions that ranged from admiration to dislike. The respondents that said they don’t mind rats showed the most unbiased result giving facts explored in literature

Conclusion Results confirmed that there is more scope for the public to be informed about brown rats in their area and that there is a need to separate opinion with the knowledge to ensure facts are well understood as extremes exist in both positive and negative viewpoints of the species Table 7: Sample of thematic analysis of interviews and survey

3.34 Phase 4 data synthesis with secondary data The final process utilised secondary data to search through each developed category of Phase 3 comparing the categorisation of secondary data to find emerged certain similarities, and thus informed reasoning that may be influential; this produced an overall set of conclusive results. The results informed this research on methods of understanding and consensus that can be built on regarding the engagement of managing urban spaces in relation to the issue of rat control. The suggestions from the results were focused on Newcastle council; however, the study could be replicated in a similar city with available data. Theme

Areas for Consideration (Interviews + Surveys)

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949

Level of Knowledge of Brown Rats? One Word Description

Results confirmed that there is more scope for the public to be informed about brown rats in their area and that there is a need to separate opinion with the knowledge to ensure facts are well understood as extremes exist in both positive and negative viewpoints of the species

It is the local councils’ duty to makes sure the citizens in their area are following procedure. However, the fault may be in legislation as an ineffective measure of distributing the challenge of managing rats

Newcastle Council Statement Newcastle council continues to legislation, providing advice on the website as well as charged services.

Suggestions (Surveys + Literature) Increase of public knowledge and engagement with the council is necessary

Table 8: Sample of thematic analysis of primary and secondary data

3.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS The outbreak of Covid19 limited the survey and interview to no contact and no face-to-face interaction, which posed challenges for random sampling. Thus, surveys became limited to participants with internet access who completed an online form; the research is hence not representative of those derived from such amenities; Thus, an uncontrollable sample bias has occurred (Bryman, 2016, p.188). Such data must be obtained in any future replication of this research methodology because residents who are most socioeconomically disadvantaged in urban areas are the ones who are most affected by brown rats (Byers et al., 2019). The total participants numbered 197 of the required 450 to be representative; thus, they will not be reliable but can still be indicative of the claims made in the literature. Covid19 also contributed to increased local council activity; thus, efforts to reach members of the local council in the duration of the research were unsuccessful. Therefore, the findings of this study lacked primary interpretations from a local council’s viewpoint in the UK. The last census in the UK took place in 2011, geographical changes in boundary in many UK cities mean that any survey would require use of dated boundaries that match the census statistics from 2011 until the statistics can be updated. Thus, the boundary observed for this research for NE1 is the former Westgate ward boundary, which was legally changed to Monument ward boundary in 2018. Conclusively, more time to this research could have significantly improved opportunity for findings and responses.

3.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Electronic mail was sent desired interviewees outlining the scope and broad aim of the project. The mail included the option to participate in the research at a preferred time, and only respondents to the mail were invited to participate. Before the interview, participants had the option to inform the researcher on whether they wanted to be made

anonymous and were open to being recorded by filling in a consent form. The recordings were destroyed after the research. The survey asked participants some questions that may have caused some degree of distress. For example, questions related to regulation interventions and perceptions of rats which are publicly viewed as unfavourable. Due to the potential for discomfort, risk reduction methods were applied: ▪ The purpose of the research was mentioned beforehand ▪ Potential participants were informed of right to withdraw at any point of the survey ▪ Participants were able to complete the survey anonymously in preferred location with lack of judgement ▪ There is a responsibility to receive consent from the potential participants. This research considers legislation in the UK concerning rodent management, as well as the comparative broader consideration of growing rodent welfare campaigns. It will be necessary to reason and address both viewpoints fairly and legally (Tarling, 2006).

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 4.1 CASE STUDY: FINDINGS ON THE CURRENT SITUATION IN NEWCASTLE CITY CENTRE This section analysed and completed the following research questions and objectives: ▪ ▪ ▪

The causes and impacts of the PDPA in the UK. How building and environmental designs have been used in planning strategies for pest management How feasible the pest management methods provided by the council are for individuals in Newcastle

The 197 respondents were asked a series of questions that could identify collective knowledge and the current situation of rats in NE1 area of Newcastle. When asked to rank their knowledge of the brown rat respondents who placed themselves at 8 (the highest being 10) majorly showed neutral attitudes; their rankings were compared to the answers they gave for validation, an example of an insightful comment was on brown rats as “cleaners” agreeable with Figure 9 of this paper. Collectively a 48% majority of the respondents confirmed the prevailing study theme that there is a negative view of rats; the negativity had a strong correlation with the level of knowledge people ranked themselves. More telling is that despite the negativity, a vast majority (133 respondents) admitted to personally having experienced no negative effects caused by brown rats, showing the negative opinions in NE1 are primarily based on indirect events, and thus the viewpoints become uninformed. Trend Lines: Knowledge(How would you rate knowledge of brown Rat) with Opinion of Rats(Do you like Rats) 10 9 8

29 Respondents

Knoledge ranking 6 of Brown Rats 1(None) -10(Expert) 5

73 Respondents

95 Respondents The more NE1 frequenters don't know about brown rats, the more they do not like the species

3 2 1

Number of Questionnaire Respondents I Don't Mind Them

Yes

Figure 17: Public opinion and knowledge of rats

Respondents that had direct experiences with brown rats expressed there is much difficulty in management of the species, with mention of a need for long term strategies. When asked for preferred strategies, a respondent stated “Possibly a strategy that would keep them away from the house for longer than a month. I know from personal experience that traps and poison do not work well. However, those were the measures taken by the pest control called by my agency. I think redesigning, filling up holes and replacing sewers would be way more helpful. Also, making sure the streets are clean”. Despite not using local council pest service, this respondent along with others felt Newcastle Council is in the position to handle the situation best; these opinions were in agreement with the national legislation PDPA, which places the responsibility of leading on local councils. Like before, some respondents showed more insight on a practical level, particularly the need for cooperation and discussion in ensuring success with the local council. On a managerial level, a respondent stated for effective management “I would say

the general public and the local government because rats may be attracted to leftover foods and rubbish. People often leave their rubbish behind, which could attract rats, and local governments should make sure we are living in a clean and healthy environment whilst designing spaces”. On an authoritative level, another respondent stated, “Mixture of people, so decisions are informed from expert opinions from relevant disciplines, e.g. medical experts, conservation experts, city planners, academics etc.”. Despite the little insights, the majority reliance on local councils(Figure 18) for leadership hints at public willingness to cooperate with Newcastle Council and their strategies. To identify possible strategies, the next section analyses the species distribution in NE1 with problems gauged.

Who should be Responsible?

People most able to manage the rats 11%

People who are affected 2%

National Government (Country-level authority) 5%

People causing the rats to be attracted to area 9%

Mixture of People 1%

Everyone 20%

Local Government (Citylevel authority) 52%

Figure 18: Public opinion on overall responsibility

4.11 Brown rats, primarily outdoors This section analysed the presence of brown rats in NE1. Nearly all respondents had direct encounters with rats brown rats, majorly in outdoors areas by Rubbish bins(Appendix 6.3); showing the environment generated by people to be a culprit in the species success. Sewer systems, green and blue spaces also primarily hosted the species during encounters; justifying needed evaluation of the function of our green infrastructure networks and underground spaces. As earlier identified in Figure 9, rats can serve to eat and breakdown waste we generate, so whether their presence in rubbish bins is necessarily a bad thing is arguable, mainly as most respondents who encountered in rubbish bins did not experience any harm. Respondent also stated that they felt the main reason they encountered rats is due to our environments design and our habits; with facilitation of sanitation as the biggest culprit.

4.12 Brown rats, costs incurred This section analysed problems caused by brown rats in NE1. At large, brown rats were not found to be problematic; a believable scenario given data on the area was not included in the 2016 Survey(Figure 15). Furthermore, viewpoints of rats being “displaced by nearby building work” supported literature findings that active areas, like NE1, cause rats to move to escape such disturbances (Himsworth et al., 2014). Despites low frequency of problematic encounters, rats are still harmful in the area with the problems mostly linked to physical nuisances of property damage, theft, and cost of prevention(Appendix 6.3). In response to these problems, Chapter 2.32 listed Newcastle council as most expensive in the rankings currently charging £84 for up to 3 treatments; a deterrent given ‘cost of prevention’ was deemed a nuisance. In written statements, respondents admitted to either using other pest control services like “Rentokill boxes” or carrying out self-prevention rather than using the council’s services. Given councils legislative responsibility alongside monetary pressures, it is essential to consider how they can more effectively engage with citizens.

4.2 NECESSARY MANAGEMENT OF BROWN RATS THROUGH PLANNING FOR EFFECTIVITY This section analysed and completed the following research questions and objectives: ▪

The causes, impacts, and responses of the PDPA in the UK.

The interviewees informed majority of this section due to their expertise which matched literature statements; it is synthesised with responses and secondary data. As expected, interviewees held more knowledge than the average person; however, opinions did vary occasionally. There were mixed opinions on defining a level of expertise because, despite existing knowledge, not much is known about brown rats in urban environments; so there is still much insight to be gained from observing the species. Interviewees were unanimous in the view that the commensalism of the brown rat tells us that management strategies must be dynamic. Furthermore, fundamental strategic change shows a need to move away from current reactive caseby-case approaches, occurring in Newcastle and much of the UK; this was earlier identified and confirmed through the questionnaire by the reliance on calls and reports. 4.21 Extermination, still very much the standard Earlier it was mentioned extermination of brown rats is not a sustainable long-term solution. Interviewees added to this stating extermination, by people, should be minimised and considered a last resort after exploring all other possible options; with an aim to avail the harm and protect people by controlling the brown rat. Dee Ward-Thompson of BCPA gave a simple analogy “if you’ve got constant headaches, you can keep taking tablets every day, but unless you go to the doctors to find out why you’ve got the headaches, you’re always going to have them. So, it’s important to have somebody that understands the behaviour and the places they are going into manage rats so that the root problem can be addressed rather than trying to alleviate symptoms”. Dr Dickman also addressed the ethical viewpoint mentioning that despite concern of particular poisons, they are still very much the standard means. If this is the case, why are such measures still used. Dr Corrigan brought out an interesting point in extermination that facilitated merit; stating that it can take on predator-prey scenarios in which people do not carry out the extermination, but other animals do for food, so in that frame, it is a situation where extermination is necessary. Ultimately Bluu raised the conclusive point with extermination actions are being made on a limited knowledge; it is true that momentarily not enough is necessarily known about the intricate ecology and relationships of the species in the urban field for extermination to generate a desired outcome. This is evident by the fact brown rats still roam Newcastle and other cities today, despite the aim of the PDPA to keep areas “free from rats” (PDPA, Section 2).

4.22 Human-evaluation on brown rats and planning Literature confirmed that the flexibility of human attitudes has not been tested by councils (Dubois et al., 2017.). Such a human-contributary angle is one Adam Grogan of the RSPCA is exploring; he mentioned the need to evaluate why current attitudes, behaviours and lifestyles do not tackle management well and how these areas can be changed; something that is not active in Newcastle council, nor National government. An approach of human attitudes thus seems suitable to progress; it fully merges different considerations, not only from the public but from experts as seen in what other interviewees brought out: 1) Different areas and circumstances – Dr Dickman and Dr Banks raised the pointed out that in Australia brown rats are not so common as in the UK; this too can apply locally as the questionnaire results reveal in consideration with Figure 15 2) Time and history – Dee Ward-Thompson from BCPA pointed out that over the years strategies have changed and evolved and people’s attitudes towards the environment have also gained more awareness; this will affect management as peoples actions are always the first step to consider for effective control; agreeably 70% of respondents indicated concern for the balance of the ecosystem 3) Scale and structure – Overall, the interviewees brought out the importance of structure, with Dr DesvarsLarrive signifying Integrated Pest Management. Integrated Pest Management is the careful consideration and filtering of all available management strategies for environmental management. Miwa and Blue indicated scale of rat management widely executed, a shift from single-property management to surrounding areas involvement. This thinking is more in the direction of addressing long term sustainability concerns citizens show that legislation does not mention. To see just how vital human-evaluation is, responses on planning and design were evaluated. Direct design implementations that could be immediately tried came with human elements that hindered their effectiveness; thus a design-first approach such as shrinking cities can prove ineffective due to its physical firmness in comparison to a humanevaluation approach which in that regard surpasses design in flexibility. Design Implementations Reduction in natural vegetation cover in cities to keep rats away. Focus on creating open spaces and reduce dead ends, shadows, and enclosures. Also, evaluate underground spaces

Hindrance and Conundrums As cities get denser, there is a psychological need for Green and Blue infrastructures to make people feel better. Difficulty due to growing density and populations. City environment is designed to accommodate more people, in doing so such hidden spaces are created

Table 9: Difficulty in implementing design solutions

Conclusively, this suggests that by designing our cities to be more attractive for ourselves, we can indirectly enable rats to live in spaces undetected; furthermore, for any “improvements” we make rats as of now, continue to be commensal and may adapt to however we choose to design our cities. This being the case, the next step should be facilitation for a long-term solution in either a re-evaluation and reimplementation of planning or of our attitudes, which can be done through urban planning discussions; because local councils have the granted ability to enforce actions and to aid citizens in vulnerable areas with less access to resources. While the interviewees like the public stated a primary role of leadership belongs to the local council; citizens and stakeholder responsibilities in said cities were equally essential to support efforts of the local councils. Thus, before suggestions to the council are made; this next section focuses on existing opinion of citizens in NE1 and what that says about attitude flexibility.

4.3 THE GREAT NEED FOR PUBLIC OPINION TO BE MORE INFORMED BY KNOWLEDGE This section analysed and completed the following research questions and objectives: ▪ ▪ ▪

The extent of the increasing threat that brown rats pose to people living in cities and the environment, and the problems that causes for urban planners and policymakers. The attitudes of people in the UK, towards the benefits that brown rats can offer them. The causes, impacts, and responses of the PDPA in the UK.

Citizens facilitate activity in their cities and were thus identified in the literature, and in the previous section 4.2, as crucial stakeholders (Murphy and Oldbury, 2002). Currently, global cities citizens are experiencing many difficulties due to density and disease; Dr Corrigan explained a vital point that there is global shock over what viruses can do to us a species. He mentioned rats do not carry the current Covid19 virus, but they do carry coronaviruses. In stating this point, the initial point from the literature is brought out, in which the possible risk of rats in our cities can be very deadly if left unexplored (Meyer, 2003). Dr Corrigan goes on to then use a human-evaluation measure earlier discussed by stating “if the rats did transmit a deadly virus, it’s quite believable that it wouldn’t take much, all of us would suddenly be considering how to stop rats from getting to our buildings and spaces”. This statement confirms the vital need of informing others just how much they can be affected by this issue, in necessities would include interdisciplinary efforts such as the interviewees have displayed and initiative from the council. This is backed up by the interviewees’ indication of no single critical intervention; rather a collection of several habits and rat proof mechanisms following councils set strategies work in reducing negative impacts. Dr Desvars-Larrive added to this stating “lack of public cooperation can be a big problem with how well this works”. The need to deal with extreme viewpoints is essential, particularly given the publics average knowledge of 3/10 in Newcastle (Figure 17); where results showed mixed opinions that ranged from admiration to dislike of the brown rats. The respondents that said they do not mind rats showed the most unbiased result giving facts explored in literature such as grouping the species as “natural” organisms rather than using the term “pest/vermin” which frequently appeared in the overall results showing effectiveness in the projection of national status applied on the species through the PDPA(Figure 19).

Figure 19: Opinion of brown rats from the NE1 public

Looking further into the comments, however, while most of the respondents showed an awareness of rats as part of the ecosystem, evidence showed that even those respondents had limited knowledge of the process intricacies; solutions of ‘sterilisation’ deprived an awareness of the possible effect on predation and food chains of the urban ecosystems. However, what is of most concern are undoubtedly the two majorities positive, and negative opinions held. The flexibility of such attitudes should be tested and examined by councils (Table 10)

Table 10: Positive, negative, and neutral views of brown rats from NE1 citizens

1) Positive, Cute/ Misunderstood – These responses showed respondent’s lack of awareness to the danger rats can pose. A measured answer showed awareness of consequences people’s friendliness with urban species can have “Because we feed the birds and food is left”, this respondent recognised the role of indirect animal feeding discussed in the literature (Murphy and Oldbury, 2002), and the consequences of treating an urban area as a rural area. Interviewees mentioned this as a reason for people to encounter brown rats in cities, most likely without realising so and encouraging more than just rat species into the urban area. 2) Negative, Dirty – These responses showed respondents lack of awareness to the contribution rats can have. Much of the public seemed to hold the opinion that rats as a species are dirty; this viewpoint clouds what literature stressed (Marris, 2019), our human environments are the culprits for dirt and rat species even clean waste we leave behind. Here the interviewees’ responses became more informative as it was focuses were more on how we manage refuse and areas of refuse. Measured responses were few in which the place of the brown rat was accepted in green spaces “It was in a park so in my opinion it’s “normal” to be there,”, whereas a few others believed and accepted that not only are green spaces suitable, but the entirety of urban spaces are the habitats of brown rats.

This negative-positive viewpoint considerations were important because, despite unanimous agreement from the literature(Zhang et al., 2002), interviews, and the questionnaires on the need for sanitation, the practical simplicity to have cooperation in ensuring no rubbish does not cover public or private spaces generates the same result as extermination; a temporary fix. Instead, looking at new attitudes and thinking about how they disallow rats to thrive can put the people in more of a position to help local councils plan for urban spaces to minimise the more prominent risks in brown rats pose. Dr Banks stated that a lot can be learned from developing countries where the consequences of rats actions are on peoples livelihoods; these benefits were explored in the literature (Meyer-Rochow et al., 2015) and will be analysed in the next section.

4.4 BRIDGING THE DISPARITY IN PUBLIC OPINION AND PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE This section analysed and completed the following research questions and objectives: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

How Newcastle compares to other UK cities in environmental planning strategies of the brown rat The possibility of positive/ softened attitudes of the brown rat being adopted into planning strategies The benefits urban brown rats offer for human society The use of co-habitation strategies by councils in the UK Recommendation advancements of environmentally planning methods UK councils can adopt How cities should be designed.

Conclusively, brown rats have a place in the overall environment. They should ideally be in the habitat in which they are most ecologically beneficially and have adaptively coevolved; such a place is currently understood to be one in which the species population can be controlled without it having exceeding negative impacts. Interviewees highlighted two divided opinions on just what this “habitat” is that local councils may consider: 1) Visionary: A place ideally outside of cities and urban areas and more so around woods, fields, even shorelines; away from human beings and activities to avoid detriment. The visionary aspect argues with points earlier touched on in the literature (German and Latkin, 2016).; that management of rats is a fragile container rather than a direct solution. The view argues for more discussion and advancements in new attempts to handle the situations 2) Reality: The urban environment has become one of the brown rats habitats as a commensal species; city parks were listed as a possible ideal for rats. The realism aspect argues that despite visualising the areas brown rats should be in because we are unsure of how brown rats fully function in urban environments, the focus should be in managing them to have less negative impacts where they already exist; with an agreement to the need for more discussion to advance management techniques Both opinions advocate for urgent action and are validated by a statement from Dee Ward-Thompson of BCPA. She expressed what researchers feared (Prescott, 2010), the species are becoming more resistant to pesticides; this show there is a real need for long term control strategies. The following information analyses responses to suggestions discussed in Chapter 2.2:

Figure 20: Response to pest management strategies respondents in NE1

4.41 Setting an agreeable but feasible standard The PDPA legislation that pushes for local councils to keep cities rat-free is one that should be considered in retrospect to attitudes and capability; the interviewees established that the focus should be on keeping the damage brown rats cause to a minimum, mainly because of how long they have been around for as a species. The interviewees’ viewpoint is reasonable given the early example of the province of Alberta, Canada, which despite showing a possibility of keeping rats out of cities, incurred several costs and ethical concerns. Dr Dickman confirmed this but gave further insight saying “it’s very rare over large areas to exterminate rats, although it’s been done it’s very rare, usually you can remove them locally or suppress their numbers; but through surrounding areas reappearances will occur through invasion”. Majority of the respondents mirrored the view legislation held, that rats should be outside of urban areas (Figure 21). However, as Table 9 argued, the majority of interviewees pointed out the contradiction of increasing green infrastructure networks and deterring rats. Newcastle is one of many cities in the UK looking to expand its green cover (Newcastle and Gateshead Council, 2015) but that will undoubtedly bring with it a favourable environment for the brown rats (Chapter 2.1); thus an agreeable feasible standard is necessary.

Figure 21: Opinion on where brown rats should be from respondents in NE1

It was discussed that the most risk might be contracted inside of homes thus that would be the first line of defence; hence, housing design standards should involve consideration of biological threats to designs early in design processes to avoid invasion into well-designed buildings. Chapter 2.3 brought out that rat-proofing which is currently in effect, is the most effective method of indoor prevention; the results show that this seems to be working to an extent as inhouse encounters with brown rats were unlikely (Appendix 3). The bigger issue amongst respondents was in outdoor type environments; Dr Banks made the simple statement that when tackling this issue, councils should consider how brown rats “respond to food and fear”. Further synthesis with literature suggests two avenues for dealing with this: 1) Radical: Smart Shrinking of Cities to allow for more dispersal of people. This is a radical suggestion that was earlier identified (Hollander, 2011) as a new extensive standard to disperse people, thus minimising the risk of rat species. This option is less likely to be favoured by councils; however, it allows them to meet the goals of increasing and implementing green infrastructure (Schilling and Logan, 2008). When respondents were asked about whether they would move to reduce the frequency of contact with brown rats, 52% the majority, were open to changes and redesigns in their original space, or movement to a different area. While uncharacteristic this avenue is a possible one for councils to consider in partnership with neighbouring local councils that can aid in dispersal of populations. Shrinking cities would enable suggestion in section 4.42 due to increased visibility. 2) Moderate: Accepting Brown Rats into Green Spaces to facilitate predation This is a moderate suggestion that allows councils to continue with their ongoing facilitations in cities with the introduction of new techniques of human or animal predation over the brown rats. This is further expanded on in section 4.42 and 4.43.

4.42 Predation of roosting birds: tawny owls Earlier it was expressed that 70% of respondents indicated concern for the balance of the ecosystem, and how rats may play a role in it; this may have played part in the dominant choice of predation as a strategy over man-orchestrated mechanisms. Such a solution is recommended, Dee Ward-Thompson of BCPA stated that “Predators, birds, in particular, could really benefit from the way we design if we have structures that birds can roost and nest on”. Earlier it was seen that Tawny Owls a common species in the UK can nest in cities; thus, these can be viable solutions for councils to consider and suggest in designs and areas prone to activity. As part of their Biodiversity Action Plan alongside North Tyneside; Newcastle council has identified areas in which nesting boxes can be placed around the city; an ongoing project. Although Tawny Owls are not explicitly mentioned, a section on urban birds exists where nesting boxes will be placed in the NE1 region; this allows for scope for the owls to be included as a species that can contribute to from this plan by also acting as a means of pest control (Newcastle Council, 2018, p.31). 4.43 No interest in rodent food source The literature discussed how the United Nations has put forward the idea of rats as a food source, with the example of cane rat farming in West Africa (Wilson, 2011, p.21). This research tested attitudes to that possibility. Respondents were asked whether they would use rats as food sources if readily available options for cleaning and cooking them existed, and interviewees on the possibility of this being beneficial to society. Although some interviewees admitted to rats potentially being a cheap protein source for humans, giving examples of them being eaten in some parts of Africa and Asia; there was little expectation of this being successful in West (Meyer-Rochow et al., 2015). Dr Corrigan phrased it this way “when considering historical association and attitudes, the mention of rats as food in Western cultures I think would be extremely unlikely as an optional popular choice unless there was no other choice”. That statement was validated in NE1 as only eight respondents were willing to use the species as a protein source. Practically the solution is a viable one, that can help councils achieve the responsibilities they hold. If local councils are to facilitate this they will meet substantial mental barriers; if such an option is to be explored councils should first seek to understand why exactly people would not be willing to have the rats as a food source. One prominent consideration is the responses from the NE1 survey are not substantially representative of persons in this area of poorer communicates nor those directly affected by rats; hence a significant factor to the lack of consideration for this solution. The eight respondents who did mention they would be willing to eat the meat listed experiences of serious problems such as catching a disease or having damage caused with one respondent stating about frequent contact ‘it’s normal’; these respondents would certainly be in a more prompting situation to recognise the benefits of rats as potential food source if it meant their issues were being eliminated. The idea of viewing brown rats as game instead of pests is further substantiated by the solution to reduction in use of poisons which are become ineffective; thus, not just benefitting people but also predator species that consume brown rats. A particular consideration for the UK was made by Steven Belmain, Professor of Ecology at the University of Greenwich's Natural Resources Institute in the UK. He explained mini-livestock, like rats, can reduce environmental impact of meat production; In the UK, pork and beef incur high energy, water and land costs from our resources (Gruber, 2016). Notably, strong proscription also plays a role in the meat not being consumed by even those who are of vulnerable and poorer communities. For example while rat and chicken have equal food values, not only in protein but throughout the entire spectrum of nutrition, Kashrut and Halal practice do not permit their consumption; thus chicken would be the better option in this scenario(Wilson, 2011, p.41).

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION Following three months of research in Newcastle, it is not being implied that the suggestions made will address the numerous challenges and barriers on urban planning. However, by confirming a problematic relationship between humans and brown rats exists in the UK, the research has detected that there are viable improvements that can be made by policymakers and planners that will be beneficial for long-term societal outcomes.

5.1 CONCLUDING REMARKS 5.11. Advice for local councils: a rationale behind a decision of public evaluation and participation Firstly, the research identifies that multi-participation when dealing with brown rats is beneficial as it facilitates critical reflection. A good communication strategy is key to successful participatory management; it fulfils the need to study the ecology of brown rats beyond making assumptions of what they do and how best to manage them. Such participation was shown to require reliance above formal legislative meetings; a greater engagement with public citizens is necessary when dealing with commensal specie. Each citizen admittedly thus has a role in their city, in public and private spaces they can observe the cities response to brown rats, having an understanding that can allow for informative incorporation of observed resilient characteristics for better planning and resilience. In Newcastle, citizens place the responsibility of leadership when dealing with brown rats on their local council; rightly so as the task is legally appointed to councils. Councils are also in unique and capable positions of access and distribution of necessary resources. Thus, councils should influence perceptions of the brown rat; the more people became informed of the capabilities of brown rats and their environmental effect, the more open they were to suggested strategies. At present perceptions are still largely distorted; citizens do not see our unsanitary environments as an issue above rats as an issue. This is attested to little research being conducted on brown rats in urban environments compared to and suburban landscapes, notable by the standard reliance on use of rodenticides in cities. Rodenticides are becoming ineffective thus better ways to manage rat populations are being sought; of these is the inclusion of a better blend of predators to have more natural solutions. 5.12 Predation as a management technique The ever-growing resistance status of brown rats in the UK widens the gap of existing challenges in controlling rodents; filling that gap can momentarily be explored using urban predators. Predation is currently the most sustainable option for UK councils who seek to include green infrastructures to their environment as part of achieving sustainable development. The Tawny Owl is common in the UK and is identified as an urban frequenter; all it lacks is nesting homes. Councils are capable of regulating, providing and encouraging nesting box establishments and should do so alongside easing use of rodenticides; this is particularly important as predators have been fatally affected by consuming rats poisoned by rodenticides, an example that shows all the more why the use of rodenticides is not beneficial in the longterm. Game rats, a form of predation amongst the human species is also one being pushed forward by the United Nations, and some Westerners. Despite strong resistance in consuming rats, mainly linked with past representations rather than current strong proscriptions; this research argues that the benefits of consuming brown rats as game is one council should consider researching given the success with cane rats. Humans as predators are in a unique position of being able to sterilise, cleanse, and cook meat, particularly today and thus would be in the greatest position to act as predators of brown rats. Such an approach is also more easily measurable, given people’s dynamic capability in response compared to Tawny Owls.

5.2 POTENTIAL AVENUES OF FURTHER RESEARCH Management of the brown rats can be easier for councils to prioritise if the strategies address multiple issues alongside rats. The following directions that were unable to be conducted and evaluated in the duration of this study are recommended due to their scope and representation of this issue: 5.21 Further exploration: relevant to this research African and Asian case studies were the primary informants of predation of rats; attempts to reach experts from regions in which predation was a commonly used method were unsuccessful. This lacking avenue is thus suggested in further discussion; collaboration and interviews with foreign professionals will provide not only insight on management strategies, but also unique insights to perceptions and how councils can relate. The research also lacked representation of poorer communities and full representation. When it comes to the issue of brown rats, it is the disadvantaged communities that should be at the forefront of the argument because they are more likely to experience and be vulnerable to the negative consequences from brown rats. Thus any future research should test the potential of nest boxes and rat meat amongst such locals and also possible providers that would be in proximity to populations in the area. Brown rats alongside other urban species have been considered beneficial bioindicators as examining them can inform us of the quality of our environments, a particular concern and responsibility for local and national government. 5.21 Further exploration: working rats Working Rats were put forward as a solution; however, not much is known or has been gathered on the possibility of using the rats to carry out tasks. The weakness in such a suggestion is that brown rats live much less than most working animals, for only about two years; however, they are proven easy to train and also offer the benefit of size and avenues that larger working animals cannot exploit thus the avenue is still open for exploration.

To finally conclude this research finds that increased public engagement and participation facilitates more research on the ecology of brown rats in urban environments because more understanding is gained on what drives them and how they use the urban environment; this puts councils in a better position to design cities that counter those motivations the brown rats have.

CHAPTER 6: APPENDICES 6.1 APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE AND QUESTIONS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE -Page 1

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE - Page 2

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS - Page 3

6.2 APPENDIX 2: SURVEY QUESTIONS SURVEY – Page 1

SURVEY – Page 2

SURVEY – Page 3

SURVEY – Page 4

SURVEY – Page 5

SURVEY – Page 6

6.3 APPENDIX 3: SURVEY GRAPHS AND CHARTS

Case Study, Location of Brown Rat Encounters

Case Study, Problems from Brown Rats in NE1, Physical

CHAPTER 7: BIBLIOGRAPHY ▪

Allen, W., Ogilvie, S., Blackie, H., Smith, D., Sam, S., Doherty, J., ... and Murphy, E. (2014). Bridging disciplines, knowledge systems and cultures in pest management. Environmental Management, 53(2), pp.429-440.

▪

Amori, G., and Clout, M. (2003). Rodents on islands: a conservation challenge. Aciar Monograph Series, 96, p.63-68.

▪

Antolin, M. M., Domingo, C. J., Joshi, R. C., Marquez, L. V., Duque, U. G., and Sebastian, L. S. (2006, August). ENDO-AND ECTO-PARASITES OF THE PHILIPPINE RICE FIELD RAT, RATTUS TANEZUMI TEMMINCK AT THE PHILRICE FARM. In 3 rd International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management.

▪

Aplin, K. P., Chesser, T., and Have, J. T. (2003). Evolutionary biology of the genus Rattus: profile of an archetypal rodent pest. Rats, Mice, and People: Rodent Biology and Management. ACIAR Monograph, (96), pp.487-498.

▪

BCPA. (2018). Professional Pest Control Live: Rodenticide Concentration the effect on resistance. [online] p.23. Available at: <https://bpca.org.uk/write/MediaUploads/Documents/PPC Back Issues/5616_BPCA__PPC90_ONLINE_HQ.pdf> [Accessed 1 July 2020].

▪

Beatley, T. (1995). Planning and sustainability: The elements of a new (improved?) paradigm. Journal of planning literature, 9(4), pp.383-395.

▪

Bonnefoy, X., Kampen, H., and Sweeney, K. (2008). Charted Institute of Environmental Health: Urban pests and their public health significance: A CIEH summary. Public health significance of urban pests. World Health Organization.

▪

BBC News. 2020. Coronavirus: Why More Rats Are Being Spotted During Quarantine. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52177587> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

▪

Brunner, P. H. (2007). Reshaping urban metabolism. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), pp.11-13.

▪

Bryda, E. C. (2013). The Mighty Mouse: the impact of rodents on advances in biomedical research. Missouri medicine, 110(3), p.207.

▪

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

▪

Buckle, A. P., and Smith, R. H. (Eds.). (2015). Rodent pests and their control. CABI.

▪

Byers, K. A., Cox, S. M., Lam, R., and Himsworth, C. G. (2019). “They’re always there”: resident experiences of living with rats in a disadvantaged urban neighbourhood. BMC public health, 19(1), p.853.

▪

Cawthorn, D. M., and Hoffman, L. C. (2014). The role of traditional and non-traditional meat animals in feeding a growing and evolving world. Animal Frontiers, 4(4), pp.6-12.

▪

Christakos, G., Olea, R. A., Serre, M. L., Wang, L. L., and Yu, H. L. (2005). Interdisciplinary public health reasoning and epidemic modelling: the case of black death (p. 320). New York: Springer.

▪

Christakos, G., Olea, R. A., and Yu, H. L. (2007). Recent results on the spatiotemporal modelling and comparative analysis of Black Death and bubonic plague epidemics. Public Health, 121(9), pp.700-720.

▪

Cowan, D. P., Quy, R. J., and Lambert, M. S. (2003). Ecological perspectives on the management of commensal rodents. ACIAR Monograph series, 96, pp.433-439.

▪

Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. (2006). Understanding mixed methods research. London. Consultado el, 25(11), 2013.

▪

Davis, H., Casta, A., and Schatz, G. (1974). Urban rat surveys.

▪

Dean, K. R., Krauer, F., Walløe, L., Lingjærde, O. C., Bramanti, B., Stenseth, N. C., and Schmid, B. V. (2018). Human ectoparasites and the spread of plague in Europe during the Second Pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(6), pp.1304-1309.

▪

Delaunay, N., 2013. Dutch Police Recruit Rodents To Rat On Criminals. [online] Phys.org. Available at: <https://phys.org/news/2013-09-dutch-police-rodents-rat-criminals.html> [Accessed 15 May 2020].

▪

de Masi, E., Vilaça, P. J., and Razzolini, M. T. P. (2009). Evaluation on the effectiveness of actions for controlling infestation by rodents in Campo Limpo region, Sao Paulo Municipality, Brazil. International journal of environmental health research, 19(4), pp.291-304.

▪

Desoky, A. E. A. S. S. (2019). Use Rodents as an Indicator of Environmental. World Journal of Agriculture and Soil Science, 2(3).

▪

Desvars-Larrive, A., Baldi, M., Walter, T., Zink, R., and Walzer, C. (2018). Brown rats (Rattus norvegicus) in urban ecosystems: are the constraints related to fieldwork a limit to their study?. Urban ecosystems, 21(5), pp.951-964

▪

Dhaar, G. M., and Robbani, I. (2006). Foundations of community medicine. Elsevier.

▪

Dhang, P. (Ed.). (2011). Urban pest management: An environmental perspective. CABI.

▪

Dickman, C. R. (1999). Rodent-ecosystem relationships: a review. Ecologically-based management of rodent pests. ACIAR Monograph, (59), pp. 113-133.

▪

Dubois, S., Fenwick, N., Ryan, E. A., Baker, L., Baker, S. E., Beausoleil, N. J., Carter, S., Cartwright, B., Costa, F., Draper, C., Griffin, J., Grogan, A., Howald, G., Jones, B., Littin, K. E., Lombard A. T., Mellor, D. J., Ramp, D., Schuppli, C. A., and Fraser, D. (2017). International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conservation Biology, 31(4), pp.753-760.

▪

Elbardan, H., and Kholeif, A. O. R. (2017). An Interpretive Approach for Data Collection and Analysis. In Enterprise Resource Planning, Corporate Governance and Internal Auditing (pp. 111-165). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

▪

Fisher, P., Eason, C. T., O Connor, C. E., Lee, C. H., Smith, G. B., and Endepols, S. (2003). Coumatetralyl residues in rats and hazard to barn owls. ACIAR MONOGRAPH SERIES, 96, pp.457-460.

▪

German, D., and Latkin, C. A. (2016). Exposure to urban rats as a community stressor among low‐income urban residents. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(2), pp. 249-262.

▪

Government of Alberta. (2019). History of rat control in Alberta. [online] Available at: https://www.alberta.ca/history-of-rat-control-in-alberta.aspx (Accessed 16 Dec. 2019).

▪

Greene, A., and Breisch, N. L. (2002). Measuring integrated pest management programs for public buildings. Journal of Economic Entomology, 95(1), pp.1-13.

▪

Gruber, K., 2015. The Countries Where Rats Are On The Menu. [online] Bbc.com. Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151207-the-countries-where-rats-are-on-the-menu> [Accessed 10 July 2020].

▪

Gruber, K. (2016). Rodent meat–a sustainable way to feed the world? Using rodents as food has a long tradition in many parts of the world. EMBO reports, 17(5), pp.630-633.

▪

Gutsch, M., Larondelle, N., and Haase, D. (2019). Of bugs and men: How forest pests and their management strategies are perceived by visitors of an urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 41, pp.248-254.

▪

Hamouda, F. A. (2018) ‘Ethical to using rats in the scientific researches’, Pharmacy & Pharmacology International Journal, 6(1) [online]. Available at: https://medcraveonline.com/PPIJ/PPIJ-06-00149.pdf (Accessed 19 Dec. 2019)

▪

Harrison, M., 2013. Armageddon Cookbook And Doomsday Kitchen. Cornwall: Wild Food School.

▪

Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S., and Johansson, D. J. (2014). The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Climatic change, 124(1-2), pp.79-91.

▪

Himsworth, C. G., Parsons, K. L., Feng, A. Y., Kerr, T., Jardine, C. M., and Patrick, D. M. (2014). A mixed methods approach to exploring the relationship between Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) abundance and features of the urban environment in an inner-city neighborhood of Vancouver, Canada. PloS one, 9(5), p.e97776.

▪

Hollander, J. B. (2011). Can a city successfully shrink? Evidence from survey data on neighborhood quality. Urban Affairs Review, 47(1), pp.129-141.

▪

Hufthammer, A. K., and Walløe, L. (2013). Rats cannot have been intermediate hosts for Yersinia pestis during medieval plague epidemics in Northern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(4), pp.17521759.

▪

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 2020. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Rattus Norvegicus. [online] Available at: <https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/19353/165118026> [Accessed 20 June 2020].

▪

Irvine, M., 1997. Computer Mice Can’t Get Clicking Until This Rat Blazes the Trail. Los Angeles Times, [online] Available at: <https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-oct-19-me-44339-story.html> [Accessed 12 June 2020].

▪

Kara, H. (2015). Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide. Policy Press.

▪

Kinver, M. (2019). Compassionate conservation 'flawed'. [online] BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48315709 [Accessed 29 Nov. 2019].

▪

Lõhmus, M., and Balbus, J. (2015). Making green infrastructure healthier infrastructure. Infection ecology & epidemiology, 5(1), p.30082.

▪

Macdonald, D. W., Mathews, F., and Berdoy, M. (1999). The behaviour and ecology of Rattus norvegicus: from opportunism to kamikaze tendencies. Ecologically-based management of rodent pests. ACIAR Monograph, (59), pp.49-80.

▪

Mangoendihardjo, S., and Wagiman, F. X. (2003). Commercial use of rats and the use of barn owls in rat management. Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and management. ACIAR Monograph, (96). pp.304305

▪

Marris, E. (2019). How rats became an inescapable part of city living. National Geographic magazine. [online] Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/rats-are-an-inescapablepart-of-city-life/ [Accessed 24 Dec. 2019].

▪

Martin, T. (2016). Reclaiming South Georgia: The defeat of furry invaders on a sub-Antarctic island. Dundee: South Georgia Heritage Trust Publishing.

▪

Meiwen, Z., Yong, W., and Bo, L. (2003). Changes in community composition and population dynamics of commensal rodents in farmhouses in the Dongting Lake region of China. Rats, mice and people, p.256.

▪

Meyer, A. (2003). Urban commensal rodent control: fact or fiction. Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and management. ACIAR Monograph, (96). pp 446-450.

▪

Meyer-Rochow, V. B., Megu, K., and Chakravorty, J. (2015). Rats: if you can’t beat them eat them!(Tricks of the trade observed among the Adi and other North-East Indian tribals). Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 11(1), pp. 1-12.

▪

Moon, L. (2008). Why we need rats: What it is like to use animals in neurobiological research in the UK?. The Biochemist, 30(5), pp.30-31.

▪

Murphy, R. G., and Marshall, P. A. (2003). Factors influencing the occurrence of rodent infestations in an inner city area of Manchester. ACIAR MONOGRAPH SERIES, 96, pp.469-472.

▪

Murphy, G., and Oldbury, D. J. (2002). Rat control by local authorities within the United Kingdom. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on urban pests (Vol. 246, pp.413-420).

▪

Nattrass, N., Stephens, J., and Loubser, J. J. (2019). Animal welfare and ecology in the contested ethics of rodent control in Cape Town. Journal of Urban Ecology, 5(1), p.juz008.

▪

Newcastle and Gateshead Council (2015). Planning for the future-Core strategy and urban core plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne 2010-2030. pp.104-105, 154-155.

▪

Newcastle Council. 2018. Newcastle And North Tyneside Biodiversity Action Plan Monitoring Review. [online] Available at: <https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/services/planning-building-and-development/treeswildlife-and-green-environment/newcastle-and-north> [Accessed 3 August 2020].

▪

Nolte, D. L., Bergman, D., and Townsend, J. (2003). Roof rat invasion of an urban desert island.

▪

Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, 2013. Ratten Helpen Politie Met Sporenonderzoek (Ratten Helpen Politie Met Sporenonderzoek). [video] Available at: <https://nos.nl/video/547897-ratten-helpen-politie-metsporenonderzoek.html> [Accessed 15 June 2020].

▪

Nsubuga, J. (2019). These are the UK’s most vermin infested areas | Metro News. [online] Metro. Available at: https://metro.co.uk/2015/04/24/do-you-live-in-one-of-britains-most-vermin-infested-places-5165118/ [Accessed 22 Dec. 2019].

▪

Ojwang, D. O., and Oguge, N. O. (2003). Testing a biological control program for rodent management in a maize cropping system in Kenya. Aciar Monograph Series, 96, 251-253.

▪

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Combs, J. P. (2011). Data analysis in mixed research: A primer. International Journal of Education, 3(1), p.1-25.

▪

Parsons, M. H., Banks, P. B., Deutsch, M. A., Corrigan, R. F., and Munshi-South, J. (2017). Trends in urban rat ecology: a framework to define the prevailing knowledge gaps and incentives for academia, pest management professionals (PMPs) and public health agencies to participate. Journal of Urban Ecology, 3(1), p.jux005.

▪

Parsons, M. H., Sarno, R. J., and Deutsch, M. A. (2016). A detailed protocol to enable safe-handling, preemptive detection, and systematic surveillance of rat-vectored pathogens in the urban environment. Frontiers in public health, 4, p.132.

▪

Peters, K. J. (1988). Potential of unconventional livestock production. World Rev Animal Prod, 24, pp.71-84.

▪

Popper, D. E., and Popper, F. J. (2002). Small can be beautiful. Planning, 68(7), pp.20-20

▪

Power, E. R. (2007). Pests and home-making: depictions of pests in homemaker magazines. Home cultures, 4(3), pp.213-236.

▪

Prescott, C. V., Buckle, A. P., Gibbings, J. G., Allan, E. N., and Stuart, A. M. (2010). Anticoagulant resistance in Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus Berk.) in Kent–a VKORC1 single nucleotide polymorphism, tyrosine139phenylalanine, new to the UK. International Journal of Pest Management, 57(1), pp.61-65.

▪

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949 Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-1314/55/section/1 (Accessed: 16 December 2019).

▪

Priyambodo, S., and Pelz, H. J. (2003). Studies on neophobic behaviour in Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus Berkenhout, 1769) from farms in Germany. ACIAR MONOGRAPH SERIES, 96, pp.155-158.

▪

Putman, R. (Ed.). (1989). Mammals as pests. Springer Science & Business Media.

▪

RSPCA. (2019). Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Living with rats and mice. E-book [online]. Available at: https://www.rspca.org.uk/documents/1494939/7712578/Living+with+Rats+and+Mice+%2813.06.2017%2 9.pdf/aee9490c-669d-9053-d248-77ac5c38d32a?t=1553271443232&download=true (Accessed 16 Dec. 2019).

▪

RSPCA. 2020. What Is The Most Humane Way To Kill Pest Rats And Mice?. [online] Available at: <https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-most-humane-way-to-kill-pest-rats-and-mice/#ftn3> [Accessed 5 May 2020].

▪

Schilling, J., and Logan, J. (2008). Greening the rust belt: A green infrastructure model for right sizing America's shrinking cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), pp.451-466.

▪

Shaikh, S. (2007). Eyes on Ice & No Blind Mice: Visions of Science from the Science of Vision. AuthorHouse.

▪

Sharp, D. (2007). On rats, refuse, and recycling. Journal of Urban Health, 84(5), pp.637-638.

▪

Silver, J., Crouch, W. E., and Betts, M. C. (1942). Rat proofing buildings and premises (No. 19). US Government Printing Office.

▪

Singleton, G. R., Hinds, L. A., Krebs, C. J., and Spratt, D. M. (2003). Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and management.

▪

Singleton, G. R., Sudarmaji, J., Tan, T. Q., and Hung, N. Q. (1999). Physical control of rats in developing countries. Ecologically-based management of rodent pests. ACIAR Monograph, (59), pp.178-198.

▪

Sloane, B. (2011). Black Death in London. The History Press.

▪

Sullivan, R. (2005). Rats: observations on the history & habitat of the city’s most unwanted inhabitants. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

▪

Tabuchi, T., Thisse, J. F., and Zeng, D. Z. (2005). On the number and size of cities. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(4), pp.423-448.

▪

Tarling, R. (2006). Managing social research: A practical guide. Routledge.

▪

The Barn Owl Trust. 2015. Tawny Owl facts. [online] Available at: <https://www.barnowltrust.org.uk/barnowl-facts/uk-owl-species/tawny-owl-facts/ > [Accessed 15 June 2020].

▪

Von Bergen, C. W. (2015). Emotional support animals, service animals, and pets on campus. Administrative Issues Journal, 5(1), pp. 15-34.

▪

Williams, R. L., Singleton, G. R., and Dickman, C. R. (2003). The role of interspecific competition in determining macrohabitat use by the black rat and brown rat at Bradley’s Head, NSW. ACIAR MONOGRAPH SERIES, 96, pp.366-370.

▪

Wilson, R. T., 2011. Small Animals For Small Farms. 2nd ed. Rome: Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, pp.20-42.

▪

World Urbanization Prospects 2018. 2018. Annual Population Of Urban Agglomerations With 300,000 Or More In 2018 (Thousands). [online] Available at: <https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/> [Accessed 17 June 2020].

▪

Zhang, M., Wang, Y., Guo, C., and Li, B. (2002). Affection of Improved Dwellings on Rodent Community in the Countryside in Dongting Plain. Zoological research, 23(5), pp.394-399.

▪

Zhu, F., Lavine, L., O’Neal, S., Lavine, M., Foss, C., and Walsh, D. (2016). Insecticide resistance and management strategies in urban ecosystems. Insects, 7(1), pp.2-14.