Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Description of Dogs and Owners in Outdoor Built-Up Areas and Their More-Than-Human Issues

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tensions are generated by the inevitable presence of dogs accompanying humans in cities. Built-up outdoor areas, spaces that are “in between” the home and dog parks, are widely frequented by dogs and their owners. The present case study, performed in Lyon (France), is the first to provide a description of these dyads in areas that vary according to terrain, district, dog legislation and use in three areas: a busy street where dogs are allowed and a park and a square where dogs are forbidden. Dog-owner profiles were identified. They adjusted their presence differently across areas and according to anthropogenic and ecological pressures, such as day of the week, time of day, weather, frequentation, and legislation. They mutually adapted their behaviors. Interactions between dogs or owners and other social agents were few; dogs primarily sniffed and urinated. There was little barking, no aggression, minor impact on the environment, and, despite instances of dogs appropriating forbidden areas and dogs off their leashes, the dogs seemed to go virtually unnoticed. The study shows how the need for more-than-human areas is evident in outdoor built-up areas (for instance, the results on types of interaction and activity across areas, absence of a leash, and appropriation of forbidden areas) as well as how the cultural and natural aspects of dogs play out. The results suggest that dog regulations should be adjusted in outdoor built-up areas and that dog parks should be developed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behavior 49:227–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • American Pet Products Association (2012) National Pet Owners Survey 2011–2012. http://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp. Accessed: 27 Nov 2013

  • Arhant C, Troxler J (2009) Dog litter in an urban environment: factors associated with owner’s decision not to pick up their dogs’ droppings. J Vet Behav 4:62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnberger A, Haider W, Brandenburg C (2005) Evaluating visitor monitoring techniques: a comparison of counting and video observation data. Environ Manag 36(2):317–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baratay E (2011) Bête de somme. Points, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Baratay E (2012) Le point de vue animal. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Batch E, Hale M, Palevsky E (2001) The case for space. Expanding recreational opportunities for dog owners and their pets http://www.freeplay.org/caseforspace.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2013

  • Beck AM, Meyers NM (1996) Health enhancement and companion animal ownership. Annu Rev Public Health 17:247–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff M, Meaney CA (1997) Interactions among dogs, people and the environment in Boulder, Colorado: a case study. Anthrozoos 10:23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanc N (2003) La place de l’animal dans les politiques urbaines. Persée 74:159–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw JWS, Lea AM (1992) Dyadic interactions between domestic dogs. Anthroz 5:245–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier S (2006) Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: are the laws justified? J Vet Behav 1:17–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Adams T (2006) Who’s taking who for a walk? Dog walking and regulation in West Australian local government. Urb Anim Manag Conf Proceed, pp. 41–47

  • Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Burke V (2007) Dog ownership, health and physical activity: a critical review of the literature. Health Place 13:261–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldridge JJ, Gluck JP (1996) Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research. Ethics Behav 6:239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabricant d'aliments préparés pour animaux familiers/Taylor Nelson Sofres (FACCO/TNS)(2010) Enquête sur le parc des animaux familiers en France http://www.facco.fr/L-enquete-2010. Accessed 27 Nov 2013

  • Fox MW (1984) The comparative ethology of the domesticated dog. In: Fox MW (ed) Behaviour of wolves dogs and related canids. Krieger Publishing, Malabar, pp 183–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox R (2006) Animal behaviours, post-human lives: everyday negotiations of the animal-human divide in pet-keeping. Soc Cult Geogr 7:525–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaunet F (2008) How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for food? Anim Cogn 11(3):475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaunet F (2010) How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for play? Anim Cog 13(2):311–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaunet F, Deputte BL (2011) Functionally referential and intentional communication in the domestic dog: effects of spatial and social contexts. Anim Cog 14:849–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaunet F, Milliet J (2010) The relationship of visually impaired people with the guide dog: how could the use of dogs be further developed in France. Alter – Europ J Dis Res 4:116–133

  • Haraway D (2003) The companion species manifesto—Dogs, people and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart LY (1995) Dogs as human companions: a review of the relationship. In: Serpell J (ed) The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 161–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobson K (2007) Political animals? On animals as subjects in an enlarged human geography. Polit Geogr 26(3):250–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgetts T, Lorimer J (in press) Methodologies for animals’ geographies: Cultures, communication and genomics. Cult Geog

  • Home R, Bauer N, Hunziker M (2010) Cultural and biological determinants in the evaluation of urban green spaces. Environ Behav 42:494–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson T (2005) Is it time to ban dogs as household pets? Br Med J 331:1278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr-Muir MG (1994) Toxocara canis and human health. Br Med J 309:5–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd AH, Kidd RM (1989) Factors in adults’ attitudes toward pets. Psych Rep 65:903–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovacs B, Gaunet F, Briffault X (2004) Techniques d’analyse de l’activité pour l’interaction homme-machine. Hermes Science Publisher, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H-S, Shepley M, Huang C-H (2009) Evaluation of off-leash dog parks in Texas and Florida: a study of use patterns, user satisfaction, and perception. Lands Urb Plan 92:314–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin Z, Allen MT, Carter CC (2011) Pet policy and housing prices: evidence from the condominium market. J Real Estate Fin Econ 47(1):109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu JH, Sibley CG (2004) Attitudes and behavior in social space: public good interventions based on shared representations and environmental influences. J Environ Psychol 24:373–384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin P, Bateson P (1986) Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Matisoff D, Noonan D (2012) Managing contested greenspace: neighborhood commons and the rise of dog parks. Int J Comm 6(1):28–51

    Google Scholar 

  • McNicholas J, Collis GM (2000) Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: robustness of the effect. Br J Psychol 91:61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNicholas J, Gilbey A, Rennie A, Ahmedzai S, Dono J-A, Ormerod E (2005) Pet ownership and human health: a brief review of evidence and issues. Br Med J 331:1252–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meers L, Colman I, Stefanini C, Haverbeke A, Normando S, Samuels WE et al (2011) Dog regulation in East Flanders, Belgium. J Vet Behav 6:92–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton J (2010) Sense and the city: exploring the embodied geographies of urban walking. Soc Cult Geog 11(6):575–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Municipal bylaw/Arrêté municipal (1943) A bylaw that forbids dogs in squares, along paths and in public gardens where children play, Arrêté interdisant la circulation des chiens sur les places, promenades et jardins publics servant d’emplacement de jeux aux enfants

  • Nast H (2006a) Loving … whatever: alienation, neoliberalism and pet-love in the twenty-first century. ACME Int E-J Crit Geog 5(2):300–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Nast H (2006b) Critical pet studies? Antipode 38(5):894–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan EN, Jones BR, O’Sullivan K, Hanlon AJ (2008) The management and behavioural history of 100 dogs reported for biting a person. App Anim Behav Sci 114:149–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pet Food Manufacturers Association (2012) Pet population 2012. Available at: http://www.pfma.org.uk/pet-population-2008-2012. Accessed: 27 Nov 2013

  • Philo C, Wilbert C (2000) Animal spaces, beastly places: new geographies of human-animal relations. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Power E (2008) Furry families: making a human-dog family through home. Soc Cult Geogr 9(5):535–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll A, Unshelm J (1997) Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors affecting them. Appl Anim Behav Sci 52:229–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS, Robinson IH (2000) A comparison of dog–dog and dog-human play behavior. Appl Anim Behav Sci 66:235–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosado B, García-Belenguer S, León M, Palacio J (2009) A comprehensive study of dog bites in Spain, 1995–2004. Vet J 179:383–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan RL (2005) Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas. Environ Behav 37:3–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savard JPL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Lands Urban Plan 48:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savolainen P, Zhang Y, Luo J, Lundeberg J, Leitner T (2002) Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science 298:1542–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semenza JC, March TL (2009) An urban community-based intervention to advance social interactions. Environ Behav 41:22–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serpell J (1995) Introduction. In: Serpell J (ed) The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Siwak CT, Tapp PD, Milgram NW (2001) Effect of age and level of cognitive function on spontaneous and exploratory behaviors in the beagle dog. Learn Mem 8:317–325

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Szabó E, Borgi M, Molnár C, Pongrácz P, Miklósi A (2009) Do dogs talk to each other, Field investigations on dog–dog acoustic communication. J Vet Behav 4:59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarsitano E (2006) Interaction between the environment and animals in urban settings: Integrated and participatory planning. Environ Manag 38:799–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesfom G, Birch NJ (2013) Does definition of self predict adopter dog breed choice? Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark 10(2):103–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2008) World Urbanization Prospects. The 2007 Revision, New York

  • Urbanik J (2012) Placing animals. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbanik J, Morgan M (2013) A tale of tails: the place of dog parks in the urban imaginary. Geofor 44:292–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kuyt N (2001) Prevention of dog attacks in public places. A local government strategy adopted by 11 Victorian Councils. Urban Animal Management Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 29–31 August

  • Vaske J, Donnelly M (2007) Perceived conflict with off-leash dogs at Boulder open space and Mountain Parks. HDNRU Report No. 76

  • Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi A, Csányi V (2004) Dogs respond appropriately to cues of human’s attentional focus. Behav Process 66:161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh J (2011) Unleashed fury: the political struggle for dog friendly parks. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells DL (2006) Factors influencing owners’ reactions to their dogs’ fouling. Environ Behav 38:707–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westgarth C, Pinchbeck GL, Bradshaw JWS, Dawson S, Gaskell RM, Christley RM (2008) Dog-human and dog–dog interactions of 260 dog-owning households in a community in Cheshire. Vet Rec 162:436–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Westgarth C, Gaskell RM, Pinchbeck GL, Bradshaw JWS, Dawson S, Christley RM (2009) Walking the dog: exploration of the contact networks between dogs in a community. Epidemiol Infect 137:1169–1178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Westgarth C, Christley RM, Pinchbeck GL, Gaskell RM, Dawson S, Bradshaw JWS (2010) Dog behaviour on walks and the effect of use of the leash. Appl Anim Behav Sci 125:38–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Hussain A, Deng J, Letson N (2007) Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environ Behav 39:797–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Communauté Urbaine de Lyon, the Association Nationale de la Recherche Technologique, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France). The authors are especially grateful to S. Drieux for her contribution to the observations and to S. Perrin for his contribution to the analysis of the videos.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire Eco-Anthropologie et Ethnobiologie, UMR 7206, CNRS/MNHN, CP 135, 57, rue Cuvier, 75231, Paris Cedex 05, France

    Florence Gaunet

  2. Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, UMR 7290, Aix Marseille Université/CNRS, Pôle 3 C, Bât 9 Case D, 3 place Victor Hugo, 13331, Marseille, France

    Florence Gaunet & Elodie Pari-Perrin

  3. Mission Animalité Urbaine, Communauté Urbaine de Lyon, 20 rue du Lac, BP 3103, 69 399, Lyon Cedex 03, France

    Elodie Pari-Perrin & Geneviève Bernardin

Authors
  1. Florence Gaunet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elodie Pari-Perrin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Geneviève Bernardin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Gaunet.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 75 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gaunet, F., Pari-Perrin, E. & Bernardin, G. Description of Dogs and Owners in Outdoor Built-Up Areas and Their More-Than-Human Issues. Environmental Management 54, 383–401 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation