Community Pet Care Station Trust Building Interview Exploration of Service Path

In recent years, the number of pet owners in urban residential areas has grown rapidly, and the living environment of micro-communities has changed accordingly, with more and more people requiring services for their pets nearby. The old commercial pet service centres in the community have not been able to meet the demand for short-term, near-home care, so a small-scale pet care centre has been established here. These small community-based facilities offer basic short-term boarding, grooming and temporary day care for pets, and can serve as a good complement to large-scale commercial services. The new industry has grown rapidly over the past three to five years, but many problems have arisen in practice. A large number of service disputes, pet safety accidents and serious failures to meet service expectations have occurred, and this has affected the normal operation of the stations. At the root of these problems is a lack of trust among the main actors, such as pet owners, station operators and other residents in the community. Trust is a fundamental part of social exchange theory, and it is needed to reduce information asymmetry and transaction uncertainty. In the field of community pet care, low trust can be seen in the owner's fear for the safety of their animals and good service, the operator's fear of false complaints and financial difficulties, and the neighbour's fear of poor hygiene and noise pollution. As a result, the loss of trust among people and institutions in the community has become an important obstacle restricting the continuous development and improvement of community life. Based on the above reasons, this paper intends to study the reasons for the lack of trust in daily life in the community and its impact on people's behaviour, so as to better find solutions to the problem of lack of trust in daily life in the community in accordance with the characteristics of society and space.

This paper will set up three levels of research objectives to study the changes in trust among the neighbourhood pet care stations in a systematic way. First, the special problems in building trust in community pet care stations are different from those in off-site large-scale commercial pet service stores. Although large-scale commercial enterprises can establish trust through brand institutionalisation and standardised hardware, community stations are in close-knit environments, and therefore, they are more vulnerable to localized disruptions in the social construction of trust. Second, the research is to find out what factors affect the mutual trust between different groups of people in the daily life of community pet care services in each situation. Based on a study of the small interactions among station staff, pet owners, and nearby neighbours, this paper aims to show how various service scenarios in the local area contribute to different types of trust. Third, we hope to build a practical trust-oriented service optimisation path that meets the close and localised characteristics of neighbourhood communities and can be implemented in daily life.

The first theoretical contribution of this paper is to fill the gap in the research on trust building in small-scenario and proximity-based business services of the community. Most of the current research on trust among academics is focused on large, comprehensive commercial enterprises or general social work interventions; they have not paid much attention to small-scale businesses in neighbourhoods and have ignored the particularity of their organisational structure. Based on the concept of trust, a spatial proximity and stakeholders' dependence model will be used to expand the scope of the theory of community social work and commercial sociology. In addition, the practical value of this paper is that it will provide a feasible plan for the operation of community pet care stations. In the close-knit service area, the lack of trust among people leads to many conflicts. The constructed service optimisation path can help the operators to reduce service disputes, increase user retention, and maintain long-term development in an orderly way. Finally, it can meet the needs of the general public and maintain good relationships among residents in the neighbourhood.

The research scope is limited to small-scale pet care service institutions that are not part of a chain and are located in the suburbs of ordinary urban residential areas. These stations mostly serve registered residents in the community and provide services such as short-term pet boarding, pet bathing and basic grooming, temporary pet accompanying care and auxiliary pet health observation. The scope excludes large-scale commercial pet hospitals, cross-community chain pet service centres and family individual pet foster care operations without fixed service sites. The boundary can maintain the focus on grassroots community-embedded services, where there are high levels of proximity and regular face-to-face interaction.

There are three basic ideas in this scope. First, a "community pet care station" is a small-scale, independent service organisation located in a residential community and offers localised, routine pet care to the people in the area. Unlike a hierarchical commercial organisation, its ability to operate well is fundamentally based on being in a certain place and having good neighbourhood relations. The second is "service trust building", which refers to the dynamic and interactive process of establishing and maintaining trust in the reliability, competence and benevolence of the service provider by the community. In this particular case, trust is not only about transactional confidence; it is also a relational way to address information asymmetry in service quality and animal welfare, reduce residents' perceptions of risk and encourage them to continue using the service. Thirdly, a "stakeholder of community pet care services" is any person or organisation that has an interest in the operation of the station. Primarily, they are the operators of the station, the pet owners who use its services, and the residents without pets who may be affected by noise or hygiene issues. Personnel from property management and the residents' committee of the community are also included because they are in charge of managing the use of space and resolving disputes. To avoid confusion in the subsequent interview investigation and service path analysis, we can set up a clear scope for various things.

The research design of this paper will be based on the first-hand collection and analysis of data from four aspects, and will follow a strict procedure. First, we will carry out preliminary field observations at three to five community pet care stations to understand their basic operation situation on site and lay an empirical foundation for the subsequent study. Then, semi-structured interviews will be carried out with three groups of respondents: pet owners who have used community pet care services, staff at the stations, and community residents who have not yet used these services. A number of different angles have been used to gain insight into how trust works. Then, targeted thematic coding will be carried out on the valid interview text data to extract the main factors related to trust and transform the original qualitative data into structured analysis categories. Finally, based on the results of the coded data, an improved service path will be proposed to solve the problem of lack of trust in services. The entire logic of this research is that an exploratory observation is carried out first, then various interviews are conducted, and finally, data coding is done and service paths are obtained; each link will produce the corresponding expected results, such as field notes, interview transcripts, thematic coding frameworks, and strategic service suggestions.

It is also necessary to know that, in the context of community-based services, there are hidden, scenario-specific demands for trust that can only be addressed by a small number of people; large-scale questionnaires are not suitable for this. Micro-community trusts are an in-depth feeling that is dependent on circumstances and thus not measurable. A large-scale questionnaire can only use a fixed list of variables and indicators; therefore, the subtlety and situation of interpersonal trust-building cannot be displayed. Semi-structured interviews are flexible and can be adjusted according to the situation, so they can reveal people's hidden views and emotions about trust in daily life. Given that this is a qualitative analysis, attention has been paid to how trust develops in small groups and institutions in the course of life; thus, by using a narrow range of data, accurate, reasonable results for improving the work of community social services can be provided.

According to the first study on the operation mode and service characteristics of embedded community pet care service entities, most of the existing studies are concerned with the spatial-embedding logic and functional integration of micro-commercial facilities in residential areas. Scholars have argued that such entities usually adopt the high-frequency and short-distance interaction mode to provide convenient and personalized care services. The existing research is mainly about the macro-level distribution of space and has not yet studied how the characteristics of such services affect people's willingness to use them at the micro level of operation and process. Second, in terms of the formation mechanism of service trust in small-scale local community business scenarios, the literature emphasises that users' perceived trust is built on repeated interpersonal interactions and the perception of service consistency. The trust will be affected by physical proximity, operational transparency and the caregiver's professional ability in these close-distance service encounters. Researchers have found some ways to reduce the problem of information asymmetry, such as using real-time visual feedback, following standardised service procedures, and relying on local reputation. However, these studies generally treat trust as a static result rather than a dynamic, iterative construction process that is deeply embedded in particular service contexts. Although these works provide a foundation, they have ignored the fact that there is no academic literature on the way in which trust is built at the community pet care station. The existing literature generally discusses localised commercial trust, but it does not address the unique emotional and practical nature of pet care services, where the main recipients of such services are vulnerable non-verbal companion animals. Based on the above analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing research, it can be determined that the innovation point and position of this paper are that it fills the gap in the above areas through in-depth qualitative interviews to reveal the specific trust-building difficulties and process changes in this narrow area, and thus it will not be a repeat of previous research and will provide context-specific empirical evidence for the general field of community service trust.

Compared with the commercial pet service institutions outside, the community pet care stations have three essential operating characteristics. First, the service area is limited to one or two neighbouring residential areas, so they are deeply embedded in the spatial structure of the neighbourhood. Second, operators generally have a certain degree of familiarity with the users in the neighbourhood and therefore have established an informal relationship with them before formally providing services. Third, the area of the site is generally no larger than 100 square metres, and thus, a relatively small number of pets can be accommodated at any given time. Therefore, the logic of operation is based on spatial proximity and micro-social intimacy, rather than the scale of standardised commercialisation. There are currently three main types of service. The basic temporary boarding mode provides short-term accommodation for pets, but according to field observations, there is widespread distrust; for example, in one observed station, the lack of transparent space separation caused the owner to be anxious about cross-infection and insufficient supervision, thereby seriously damaging their trust. The package-type daily care and grooming integrated service mode aims to increase customer loyalty by offering various services together. However, based on the observations, when the quality of grooming services is poor due to limited space and personnel, the sense of loss in daily care services will lead to a general reduction in trust, and owners will suspect that operations are lacking in service. Finally, the community public welfare auxiliary pet care mode is attached to the public welfare area of the community for the elderly and uses the public space to reduce the access threshold. However, this mode has different types of trust problems; at one observed shared-space station, the unclear sanitation regulations and lack of dedicated emergency response ways caused serious distrust among residents, and they considered the arrangement a drawback of the community rather than a plus. Therefore, these models are suitable for the needs of the community, but their operational deficiencies always lead to a lack of trust and require systematic solutions.

It can be seen from the above that the trust in the operational system of community pet care stations is not a single variable, but rather depends on the position of various stakeholders. The trust judgment standards and focus of the three groups are quite different, and a variety of expectation relationships have been formed. For pet owners, they are mainly concerned about whether the service is good or bad from a technical perspective and whether it is kind. The primary beliefs are that the pet will be safe, that the staff at the station have enough professional knowledge to care for it, and that they will take good care of the pet's special habits. At this stage, to reduce vulnerability in the pet owner group, a responsible station should be established to protect companion animals.

Station operators and the staff set their own trust expectations based on their roles. Based on the transparency of information provided by users about pets' basic health and behaviour, they will decide whether to continue the service and thus minimise the risk of operation. In addition, the staff's trust in users' compliance with the terms of the service contract is to prevent unreasonable demands that exceed the agreed scope of service; otherwise, their professionalism will be undermined, and they will feel emotionally exhausted.

Non-user community residents are far removed from the direct service trade and have a sense of trust in space fairness and environmental externalities. Their concern is whether the operation of the station will bring negative effects to the neighbourhood, such as noise disturbance and odour pollution from the pets, thus affecting the living environment of all residents.

A comparison of various perspectives shows that there is a large structural gap. The first type of requirement for meticulous and specific personalisation for people with special needs may be in conflict with the expectation of residents for quietness; the second type of staff's strict adherence to the service boundaries may also be perceived by users as lacking kindness. Perception differences and hidden contradictions in the same service links will cause the loss of common sense among the people, thus providing a foundation for later studying the trust crisis in the system.

According to the field investigation, there are four practical problems in the operation of community pet care stations. First, there is a large amount of information asymmetry before service delivery. The owners cannot know about the daily care of their pets. A field-collected dispute occurred due to an owner finding that their dog was kept in a crate for a long time contrary to verbal promises; this caused anxiety and damaged the original trust because of the lack of transparency before the service. Second, there is no good communication platform during the service. If the pet has a sudden bad mood or refuses to eat, the owner and the staff will be upset and not know what to do. One of the cats' stress-induced aggressive behaviours was mistakenly seen by the staff as intransigent behaviour; the owner did not know the whole story and wrongly believed that the station had used rude force, thus breaking the good relationship. Third, there are very few standardised post-service feedback channels. Some small negative experiences have not been solved. Therefore, it will spread in the community and form an opinion that is harmful to the station. Fourth, the operating guidelines of the stations are inconsistent and do not meet the requirements. There are no clear industry rules or standardised care protocols for reference, and users have no objective basis to judge whether the service meets the basic quality requirements. There are disputes about whether one short walk per day is sufficient exercise; people have different ideas, and there is no regulation on how to operate this. In summary, these four problems constitute a systemic trust gap, turning ordinary service scenarios into areas of constant relational fragility and hindering the sustainable development of community-based pet care.

The scientific nature of exploring the problems of trust and service paths for community pet care stations is based on the systematic selection of qualitative interview samples and strict rules for data coding. In terms of sample selection, the research will use purposive sampling to guarantee that the opinions of all stakeholders are fully heard. There will be 27 participants; according to their number, they will be divided into three groups: 14 pet owners who have used community pet care services twice or more to study the trust of experience; 7 front-line staff and operators with more than one year of work experience to learn about the institution and work; and 6 community resident representatives living within 500 meters of the stations who do not use the service, to explore the reasons why the periphery has no trust. Through this triangulation of sampling, respondents of various ages, pet types and different degrees of contact with the station have been included to improve the representativeness of the qualitative data.

After collecting the data, the interviews will be processed in a strict and ordered way. First, all the interviews will be transcribed into word-for-word text, and then they will be coded with grounded theory in three stages: open coding, which breaks down the original data into concepts; axial coding, which groups the concepts around relational axes to find categories; and selective coding, which extracts core categories to form a theoretical system. During this research process, it is stipulated that the researcher cannot add any ideas that are not part of the interview text; thus, theory building is based on the data. In order to strengthen coding reliability and reduce errors caused by individual subjectivity, this study uses a cross-testing scheme with two coders. A dual coder system is used to resolve the coding differences by consensus, thus making the inter-subjectivity of the consensus formalised and ensuring that the analysis is reliable to study the operation status and trust problems of community pet care stations.

Based on the systematic coding of interview texts, the extracted elements that influence trust are empirically divided into three different parts, based on the actual feedback of interviewees without any pre-set hypothetical framework. The first is the sense of controllability generated by the transparency of service information, and this occurs at the early stage of contact. As an interviewee has said, "When I can easily know the price and service content in advance, I am in control of the situation rather than entering a black box." Thus, it has been confirmed that transparent information can reduce people's initial uncertainty and is a basic prerequisite for trust to develop. The second dimension is the sense of closeness and mutual understanding formed through long-term contact, and it is in the maintenance stage of relationships. One typical excerpt reads: "After several visits, the staff will remember my pet's habits and health issues; such personal attention makes me feel that they really care about us." It has been shown that constant high-quality contact enhances the sense of closeness and transforms one's cautious trust into a sense of belonging and intimacy. The third is the perceived sense of safety caused by external constraint rules, which is at the stage of multi-party supervision. Another respondent mentioned, "Knowing that there are formal industry regulations and community supervision systems in place gives me a sense of security; if something goes wrong, I have a definite path to seek help." Therefore, institutional guarantees have been verified to be a way to strengthen trust in risk management. The logical links among these three dimensions are precisely the staged process of trust construction starting from the very beginning and gradually deepening. Perceived controllability is to reduce people's cognitive uncertainty at the entrance and start their trust; mutual understanding is the process of deepening trust through emotional and cognitive integration in the course of continuous contact; and external constraint rules will further consolidate trust by establishing a mechanism for accountability. The three-dimensional division can well show the changeable situation of trust development in a community pet care centre and also has the characteristics of theory and practice.

Pre-service Information Disclosure and Standardized Service Notification System are the foundations for building initial trust between the Community Pet Care Station and pet owners. In social work, initial trust is more about cognition, and before any actual interaction, it is based on the perceived openness and predictability of the service provider. Thus, to some extent, providing comprehensive information can build trust and reduce the fear of leaving one's pet at an institution.

Operationally, this mechanism requires that the station will conduct a full disclosure of pre-service information through all available channels. Specifically, a list of services with no hidden terms must be posted by the station at the physical front desk and in the internal public communication group of the community. These lists should specify exactly what services are offered for each project, the exact cost per day per pet, and the strict pet health requirements for acceptance. To address the issue of credential ambiguity, the real names and relevant pet-care experience of all on-site staff should be publicised so that owners can objectively verify their professional competence.

To be in line with the above disclosure, a standardised service notification document should be provided for users to check and confirm at the first consultation. The document will clearly inform all users of the specific time for daily feeding, the way of arranging pet activities, and the disposal plans for special situations such as the refusal of pet food. To make these procedures more regular, the mechanism does not provide vague descriptions of services such as "We will take good care of your pet", which cannot be verified objectively and have no basis for cognitive trust.

In practice, a certain degree of information disclosure is necessary to demonstrate openness. It transforms the subjective guarantee into an objective and verifiable promise, creating a stable service environment. Pet owners are able to know the specific operation procedures and staff qualifications of the pet-sitting company in advance; thus, they feel less risk. Therefore, strict pre-service information is needed; it not only meets the ethical requirements of informed consent in social work but also lays the basis for rational initial trust and optimises the community service path at the beginning.

The first-contact interactive guide is to be used to help build the initial trust between pet owners and station staff through a set of transparent services. A standardised 15 to 20 minute interactive process will be set up for new users to solve problems in an orderly manner. The first step is to show the owner around with a guide; staff will take the pet owner around the pet activity area, the boarding room, and the grooming operation area. By allowing them to become familiar with the space, they will feel more comfortable and no longer anxious about leaving their pet in an unfamiliar place.

After the introduction, the next step will be to collect information deliberately. Instead of one-on-one talking, station staff will use a uniform list of questions to obtain basic information about the pet's personality, eating habits and possible stress reactions in a new environment. This standardised tool will help prevent errors in care because it will check all the necessary conditions for care at the beginning of the interaction. In addition, the list will be used in an orderly and friendly manner to promote communication in the neighbourhood and reduce the distance between neighbours.

Finally, a technology demonstration of openness and transparency will be provided through the interactive guide. The staff will show the owner the real-time shooting channel and teach them how to remotely view the live video to check their pet's condition at any time during the service. The above demonstration is the embodiment of the station's sense of openness; it provides owners with a sense of control and, thus, quickly builds trust based on calculus. Through good neighbourly relations and a warm environment, this first-contact guide can meet the need for care of pet owners in various aspects, including basic daily life, emergency medical assistance and so on, in addition to being open and transparent.

It is difficult to maintain relational trust for a long time in community pet care stations, and the reason is the irregular nature of the bidirectional feedback and demand response system. The mechanism is not one-way services; instead, it forms a two-way communication loop that not only ensures the service experience is in line with people's needs but also helps the service provider adjust based on the situation. The basic idea is to turn episodic service encounters into a continuous, responsive dialogue that can reduce information asymmetry and prevent gradual erosion of trust.

To function, this system should not be expensive and be in line with the daily operations of the station. After each service is completed, the staff will send a three-to-five-item feedback questionnaire by the community's private communication channel within two hours. The shorter time can help people remember their feelings about the service better and reduce the burden of thinking. In addition to this one-off collection, the station will reserve 15 minutes per week as a fixed "pet care demand communication time". This designated period is only for regular users to carry out a one-on-one service; therefore, it can collect personalised demands and needs more precisely.

Finally, the effect of this two-way system depends on strict regulations for response and processing. Relational trust is delicate, so the procedure of fair handling of feedback is important. All user feedback should be replied to promptly within 24 hours. The answer must clearly state that the proposed improvement is implementable or list specific, objective reasons why the demand cannot be met. If you just say that the problem has been noted and will be addressed later, it is not allowed; otherwise, it will be seen as passive attitude from the administration and harm the building of trust.

To cultivate a stable habit of mutual feedback, the station will publish rules for timely and clear processing. The operational responsiveness shows that people are concerned about the well-being of users, and so in the process of service provision, it will become a kind of partnership. Therefore, the demand response system can help build mutual trust and sustain the development and legitimacy of the community pet care station over time.

The pet health file sharing and privacy protection agreement is the main framework for maintaining trust among long-term community pet care stations; it is a kind of standard and user-oriented information management mode that can collect all kinds of pet health data in real time and clarify the scope of information use and protection for all parties. Its basic idea is that the user should be notified first, the collected data should be as little as possible, and it should only be used for the purpose of protecting the data. In the actual operation, each long-term registered user will have an exclusive, encrypted pet health file that will constantly add new and orderly observation records of the pet's food and water intake, daily mood changes that can be observed by service staff, slight physical abnormalities like red skin or a low level of activity when grooming or boarding, real-time vaccination validity tracking, etc. After each service session, the station will send out a selectively observable version of the updated file to the pet owner through a dedicated communication channel; thus, the owner can cross-reference their daily observations and be aware of the pet's health changes overall without missing any information. There is a formal privacy protection agreement in the file system that clearly states that all the sensitive information in the files, such as the pet's unique biometric identification, the owner's private contact information, residential address and family care preferences, will not be accessed, sold or disclosed to any third party without the owner's explicit written consent. For users who stop cooperating with the system for more than 180 consecutive days, the system will automatically delete all relevant file records permanently and irreversibly to prevent users from worrying about privacy leaks and demonstrate the station's professionalism and care for their pets, thereby gradually building a stable relationship of trust that is not just a matter of service.

The above is the evaluation system for service quality launched by the community resident committee in cooperation with local pet owner representatives and station operators to build trust in the community pet care service. At the bottom, it has changed the way of management for each side from an individual relationship of the enterprise and users to a joint supervision system, and placed the operation of the station in the overall framework of community governance. At its core is the need for procedural fairness and transparency in evaluation to reduce information asymmetry and prevent possible opportunistic behaviour by the service provider.

The operating system should have comprehensive and scientifically defined indicators. Examine the on-site sanitation of the station; meet the environmental hygiene standard regularly; the rate of satisfaction with handling complaints from the public; and if there are no problems with disturbances in the neighbourhood due to the operation of the station. The above two aspects are both internal service quality and external social impact indicators of the system.

The implementation path of this system is based on institutionalised norms and open channels of communication. The results of the evaluation will be published regularly in the community's public announcement section. The regular announcement has been institutionalised as a way of building reputation, so the operators of the station must continuously improve their service level to retain the trust of the community. At the same time, the system has established an easy way for residents to complain. The accessibility mechanism will enable any resident of the community to submit their opinions and suggestions directly to the community resident committee, without needing to deal with the service provider. Therefore, a variety of supervision means are formed to ensure that the system can operate stably and reasonably based on the common good of the people.

The basic standard of industry compliance for the community pet care station is the basis for institutional trust assurance. According to the relevant operational regulations of the local pet service industry, the stations must follow strict service rules to prevent possible risks and ease the worries of pet owners. The first-aid kit for small animals in the station is not a random arrangement; rather, it is intended to be able to address various emergencies promptly. The operation of the service area is to be cleaned, smell-free and regularly disinfected daily and against epidemic diseases. It is not only for reasons of rules and procedures but also to demonstrate that the company is conscientious, so that pet owners know about the safety of their pets and can trust the service.

At the same time, it is also necessary to have a full-fledged emergency response plan for dealing with the typical sudden problems in community pet care. At times of crisis, trust is fragile; therefore, there must be prior-set transparent procedures to avoid arbitrary errors and operational paralysis. The emergency plan will explain in detail what to do if a pet is accidentally injured, such as quickly containing it, administering first aid, etc., and how to prepare internal documentation. In addition, it is necessary to provide details on the exact handling procedures when pets show severe discomfort and need to be urgently transported to a pet hospital, as well as the steps for safe transportation and handover procedures with veterinarians. An important task is to set up a notification system so that when there is an emergency, it will be promptly and correctly communicated to the owners of pets with care. By establishing these particular procedures in a system, all circumstances that may threaten trust will have a clear and agreed-upon disposal rule in this framework. This will not only reduce harm but also strengthen the foundation for institutional trust; thus, the community is more confident that the station will be able to address difficulties in a professional and transparent manner.

The results of the pilot will be used to judge whether the new service route is suitable for a typical community pet care station in a medium-sized urban area, and the pilot will be carried out at this site for 18 months. Over three months, all the plans to optimise the entire service path that have been put forward in this study have been incorporated into the daily work of the station. In order to check whether the trust-oriented optimisation has been used in practice, several types of data were collected before and after the pilot, such as the satisfaction level of the users, the number of new users brought in through word-of-mouth from existing users, and the frequency of service problems. Tracking these data in a systematic way can help us determine whether the theoretical service path will lead to an increase in trust and stable operation in reality.

Based on the above quantitative data, after the pilot, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the operating personnel of the station and users. The above analysis will help us know whether the revised path can be applied in real life and find out what makes it more trustable in the community. The interview results show that some minor local changes need to be made at different scales of stations to meet the needs of all. The above are three reasons for the deviation of the quantitative indicators and the results of the qualitative interviews; thus, the new service route proposed in this paper has not been fully developed. It has a certain degree of promotion in practice and offers a replicable, generalised and targeted model for establishing trust in community pet care services.

The trust-building path and service mode of the community pet care station in this paper have been systematically studied, and both theoretical and practical values have been demonstrated ^[4]. Trust is the basic form of social capital in community social work, and it is not only a matter of personal psychology but also a necessary condition for the sustained operation of social service facilities. From the above analysis, it can be seen that trust construction is a dynamic three-part process of procedure; cognitive trust begins with the authority of institutions and the openness of their work, affective trust deepens through caring interactions in daily life and changes according to circumstances, behavioural trust is based on the quality of services provided and the manner in which they are given, and good experiences help to maintain trust. In short, trust cannot be coerced; it needs to be built based on good faith in a professional way and predictability in terms of operation.

The above trust system is very important in actual use. The community pet care station is a small part of the overall neighbourhood social network. With the development of trust, the station will no longer only provide animal care services but also strengthen the sense of belonging among people in the community and meet their emotional support needs. The Operational Service Path needs to pay attention to both the standardised care plan that meets the basic requirements of safety and law and also provide personalised, relationship-based services to meet the different emotional needs of the pet owners. A mistake in either area may lead to a loss of trust, and thus, the stability of the station system will be affected.

The results have shown that a sustainable path to service will be built on the basis of regular communication channels and the participation of community members. By applying the professional social work method to daily life, the possibility of disputes can be reduced, information asymmetry can be addressed, and all parties can work together in good faith. In short, the gradual construction of trust determines the effect of community-based interventions. Given that trust is a necessary condition and an ongoing operational goal, it must be constantly strengthened so that the community's pet care stations will not be closed due to any reason. Based on the above, this paper can provide a strong, evidence-based framework for the optimisation of the community-embedded service model by practitioners.

[1]Smith, J., Brown, A.. Advances in Community Pet Care Stati... (1)[J]. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2024, 12(5): 77-111.

[2]Smith, J., Brown, A.. Advances in Community Pet Care Stati... (2)[J]. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2021, 27(1): 72-115.

[3]Smith, J., Brown, A.. Advances in Community Pet Care Stati... (3)[J]. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2024, 25(3): 66-113.

[4]Smith, J., Brown, A.. Advances in Community Pet Care Stati... (4)[J]. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2021, 17(4): 61-100.

[5]Deepak Sirdeshmukh, Jagdip Singh, B.A. Sabol. Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2002.

[6]Keith S. Coulter, Robin A. Coulter. Determinants of trust in a service provider: the moderating role of length of relationship[J]. Journal of Services Marketing, 2002.