RESUMEN
Cat ownership is increasing globally, representing a growing threat to urban wildlife. Although some cities have policies and strategies for managing owned cats, the companionship value placed on cats makes such management contentious. Prioritizing cat management in urban residential zones adjacent to large significant ecological areas (SEAs; areas designated on the basis of representativeness, threat status or rarity, diversity, connectedness, or uniqueness) could maximize return on management effort. Residents in these areas may place a relatively higher value on nature than residents in suburbs with minimal or no SEAs, and therefore may be comparatively more likely to perceive cats' wildlife impacts as important. We used a quantitative survey to compare SEA and non-SEA suburbs' residents' attitudes towards cat impacts and management in Tamaki Makaurau-Auckland, Aotearoa-New Zealand. Participants were asked to rate the importance of different feral and owned cat impacts, the importance of feral-cat control in different locations, and various ownership behaviors in terms of acceptability and best practice. SEA suburb residents placed more importance on wildlife predation impacts of feral cats and were more likely to regard 24-h cat confinement as best practice than non-SEA suburb residents. However, we also found that cat ownership and youth were negatively associated with perception of cat impacts, and owners were less likely to accept belled collars and cat confinement than nonowners. Therefore, although targeting SEA adjacent areas for cat management holds promise for reducing resident contention, proximity to such areas is a relatively minor influence for cat owners.