Description of Dogs and Owners in Outdoor Built ... - Semantic Scholar

Description of Dogs and Owners in Outdoor Built-Up Areas and Their MoreThan-Human Issues Florence Gaunet, Elodie Pari-Perrin & Geneviève Bernardin

Environmental Management ISSN 0364-152X Volume 54 Number 3 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383-401 DOI 10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media New York. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 DOI 10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8

RESEARCH

Description of Dogs and Owners in Outdoor Built-Up Areas and Their More-Than-Human Issues Florence Gaunet • Elodie Pari-Perrin Genevie`ve Bernardin

•

Received: 14 March 2013 / Accepted: 5 May 2014 / Published online: 15 July 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

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

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. F. Gaunet (&) Laboratoire Eco-Anthropologie et Ethnobiologie, UMR 7206, CNRS/MNHN, CP 135, 57, rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France e-mail: [email protected] F. Gaunet E. Pari-Perrin Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, UMR 7290, Aix Marseille Universite´/CNRS, Poˆle 3 C, Baˆt 9 Case D, 3 place Victor Hugo, 13331 Marseille, France E. Pari-Perrin G. Bernardin Mission Animalite´ Urbaine, Communaute´ Urbaine de Lyon, 20 rue du Lac, BP 3103, 69 399 Lyon Cedex 03, France

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. Keywords Dog Pet Owner Practice Urban management Animal geography City

Introduction For more than 14,000 years, dogs have lived in human environments (Savolainen et al. 2002). In the United States (313 million inhabitants), there are 78.2 million dogs (American Pet Products Association 2012) and approximately 39 % of households own at least one dog; in the United Kingdom (60 million inhabitants), there are approximately 8 million dogs (Pet Food Manufacturers Association 2012); in France (63 million inhabitants), there are 7.59 million dogs, and 22.4 % of French households own at least one dog (FACCO/TNS Sofres 2010). In 2007, more than half of the world population lived in cities, and the expected urban population will top 60 % by 2030 (United Nations 2008). This regularly gives rise to new laws or amenities for dogs in cities (Urbanik 2012; Urbanik and Morgan 2013; Lin et al. 2011), which generates a crucial need for studies aiming to shed light on the presence of dogs and owners in cities. The importance of dogs in Western societies is apparent through the numerous activities that people have with dogs (for leisure or professional purposes), the manufacture of

123

Author's personal copy 384

various types of artifacts for dogs, and the development of urban environmental amenities, such as dog parks for unleashed dogs and other users, especially prominent in the United States since the 1980s (Beck and Meyers 1996; Matisoff and Noonan 2012; Nast 2006a; Urbanik and Morgan 2013; Walsh 2011). A dog park is defined as an off-leash area. It naturally provides opportunities for owners to interact with other people, but above all it offers a safe and controlled environment where dogs can exercise, play, and socialize with other dogs or people. How is the presence of dogs in cities explained today? Owning a dog confers physiological and psychological benefits (McNicholas et al. 2005): (1) dog ownership provides social support and encourages people to go outside and walk with their pet (Cutt et al. 2007); and (2) performing daily activities in the company of a dog allows for greater social interaction because the dog’s presence facilitates social exchanges (Gaunet and Milliet 2010; McNicholas and Collis 2000). In urbanized areas, the status of the dog is now that of companion (Serpell 1995). As such, dogs are now no longer considered as working animals (and thus as a tool or object) but as co-organizers of the owners’ life and of the dog–owner relationship. Dogs are indeed known to have specific needs (Urbanik 2012), and studies on apparent referential and intentional communication shows that dogs communicate to their owners on what satisfies them (Gaunet 2008, 2010; Gaunet and Deputte 2011). In this vein, it was argued by Power (2008) that dogs ‘‘assert their presence in their human families,’’ that their roles are redefined with the different (human) family members, and that the individuality of the dog is privileged. In turn, the dog’s needs are met by the owner. Importantly, and as a consequence, some investigators (e.g., Power 2008; Urbanik and Morgan 2013) have proposed that a specific social regulation mode is involved. For instance, the development of dog parks is supported by evidence that what is called ‘‘more-than-human families’’ need ‘‘more-than-human public spaces’’: Indeed these investigators found a link between conceptions of family—including a dog—in the private sphere that were transferred to the public spaces of neighborhood parks and to the city itself. Yet alongside these trends, the presence of dogs in cities is subject to various pressures. Nuisance potential is indeed attributed to dogs (Jackson 2005), although whether this is real or perceived has not yet been determined. Among the annoyances, park users mention owners failing to pick up dog faeces, dogs frightening surrounding wildlife (e.g., dogs flushing birds), dogs jumping or pawing people, etc. (Vaske and Donnelly 2007). However, data gathered by Bekoff and Meaney (1997) in Boulder (Colorado) question these findings, showing that the perceived effects of dogs on the environment differ according to studies. Still, dog faeces in public areas are a major concern for citizens and

123

Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401

municipal politicians because it involves a potential public health risk through disease transmission (Kerr-Muir 1994), unsightliness, and unpleasant odors. This has resulted in antifouling campaigns designed on the basis of studies targeting the demographic factors associated with the likelihood of dogs fouling public areas or owners failing to pick up their dogs’ faeces (Wells 2006; Arhant and Troxler 2009); see also the study of the effect of dogs being on a leash (or not) on owners picking up faeces (or not) (Westgarth et al. 2010). Dog aggression toward humans (O’Sullivan et al. 2008; Rosado et al. 2009) and other animals (Roll and Unshelm 1997) is another significant public safety issue. Government regulations intended to control dogs address these issues by way of social regulations (e.g., access to public places and identification requirements) and interactions between dogs and humans or animals (e.g., laws for using a leash); see, for instance, dog regulations in East Flanders, Belgium, in Meers et al. (2011); see also fines in certain French cities for dog fouling. Some countries further introduced breed-specific laws between 1980 and 2000 aiming to restrict or ban ownership of breeds deemed to be dangerous; the reasons are mainly based on the dogs’ danger potential (such as their physical characteristics and functional histories as fighting dogs, Baratay 2012; Collier 2006). Unfortunately, the scientific literature on the legislation of dog management is scarce. Approximately speaking, in western countries, most outdoor urban areas are accessible to leashed dogs (although some are banned), and most parks are forbidden for dogs (although dog parks are increasing in number). All of these data thus highlight the geographical schism between integrating dogs into urban life and the current legal construct that forces them to be regulated by way of separate places or practices. How did we get there? In the case of France, at the end of the 19th century, the significant growth of urban dog populations presented health concerns: Municipalities prohibited stray dogs and mandated the collar and the leash (Baratay 2011). In the case of the city of Lyon, where the present case study was performed, dogs were banned from parks between the end of the 19th century and 1943 (Municipal bylaw 1943). Currently, municipal authorities in France grant or withdraw specific authorizations for dogs in parks with or without a leash according to local citizen pressures (both owners and nonowners) and in prevention/anticipation of complaints. Given these anthropogenic ecological pressures on dogs, human urban densities, the inappropriateness of built-up urban terrain for dogs and legislation policies for dog ownership, dog owners began campaigning for designated areas in which dogs could satisfy their needs, including exercising and socializing (Batch et al. 2001; Matisoff and Noonan 2012; Urbanik and Morgan 2013). At one extreme, dog parks developed in the United States and, at the other

Author's personal copy Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401

extreme, in France: For instance, French owners take their dogs to more or less countryside/green areas around or inside cities whether they are allowed to or not, choosing areas where no one will complain or where there is little chance of being fined. However, green spaces, such as parks, are not the first areas frequented by city inhabitants. Including dogs and owners; city inhabitants most frequently use built-up areas. The presence of animals, and especially of dogs, is not taken into account in cities. Indeed, whereas plant species are seen as being aesthetic and health factors, the presence of animals in urban built-up areas has long been considered to be a nuisance. Moreover, the practices of urban planning and landscaping integrate plant species when designing urban areas, but they neglect animals, which are mobile (Blanc 2003; Tarsitano 2006). Only the study by Cutt et al. (2006) showed that local governments appreciate the fact that the community benefits from dog ownership and that people walk their dogs in public areas. These investigators further suggest that a number of key factors should be considered by local governments when planning public spaces, e.g., availability of and access to dog exercise areas and provision of dog-related infrastructure. Envisioning a city as a world of relationships that includes animals has yet to make peace with animal hygiene/nuisance issues. Animal rights groups and ecological pressures have begun to elevate the status of animals and alter how they are perceived; as city populations increase, the restoration, preservation, and enhancement of biodiversity in urban areas have received greater attention (Savard et al. 2000). This is observed in scientific studies on the use and representation of outdoor and green areas by citizens as, for instance, the attachment to natural areas in cities (Ryan 2005), the appreciation of urban green spaces (Home et al. 2010), community involvement in urban design (Semenza and March 2009), and public attitudes toward urban trees (Zhang et al. 2007). Regarding animals, the presence of dogs has not been targeted for outdoor built-up public spaces, which are the areas they frequent most often (e.g., characteristics, activities, and positioning of dogs and owners). Further to this, most available studies do not focus on the nature and frequency of contacts between pet dogs, their owners, and other people or other dogs in public areas: Bradshaw and Lea (1992) explored in detail the behavioral sequences of dogs’ interactions in frequently used walking areas and concluded that most of the interactions were nonaggressive, but they did not analyze the frequency of the interactions according to areas; Rooney et al. (2000) showed how the number of dogs walked by owners affected the incidence of play between dogs and their owners; and Westgarth et al. (2009) showed a high level of overall potential contact among dogs during walks in public spaces. Westgarth et al. (2008) investigated the

385

nature and frequency of the contacts that occur between dogs and between dogs and people: These varied widely and were affected by the size, sex, and age of the dog, individual dog behaviors, human behaviors, and human preferences in dog management. Westgarth et al. (2010) further showed that interactions between dogs were more frequent than those between dogs and people in parks that allowed dogs to be offleash. Yet academic research on dog presence in built-up outdoor areas does not provide an exhaustive overview and does not really address our concern about the characteristics, frequency and types of interaction, activities, and placements of dogs and their owners. Given the paucity of studies on these issues (i.e., how the two ‘‘get on together’’, Haraway 2003) in different types of urban areas, together with tensions induced by the widespread presence of dogs accompanying humans in cities (Wilson 1984) as well as the pressures exerted on urban domestic dogs and their sociopolitical status (Hobson 2007; Power 2008), this article presents a naturalistic/ observational and exhaustive case study of animal geographies (i.e., entanglements ‘‘of human–animal relations with space, place, location, environment and landscape’’, Philo and Wilbert 2000). In the context of small-scale geographies, this case study is novel in that it concentrates on ‘‘in-between’’ spaces and not on dog parks (Urbanik and Morgan 2013) or the home (Powers 2008). It focuses on built-up areas frequented by dogs and their owners, as well as other users, lying between these two important types of spaces for these users (home and dog park). We targeted three particular public outdoor built-up areas that are consistent in terms of scale but vary in their characteristics. They correspond to three major types of urban space in a city that a dog–owner dyad first encounters (although other types exist): a street where dogs are allowed on leash and an urban park and a square both banning dogs. This study aimed to show what occurs for dogs and their owners together in these spaces (Hodgetts and Lorimer in press) and thus to determine the role of places in shaping human– dog population interactions and activities by comparing observations between areas (Urbanik 2012) as well as to identify any discrepancy between planned and actual use by dog–owner dyads. We thus recorded the following: (1) the characteristics of each dog–owner dyad (Who); (2) the time of day/week when these dyads appeared in public area and the weather and other specific events (When and contextual information); (3) how dog–owner dyads moved through urban public spaces (How); and (4) characteristics of dog–dog, dog–people, dog–owner, and owner–people interactions, activities of dogs and owners, and the impact of the presence of dogs on the environment (What). The present case study thus also aims to identify how observations in such areas fit the concepts of animal geographies that are at present in debate, i.e., animals appearing as both

123


agents and a different species, dog–owner relationships based on companionship and ‘‘hybridity’’ (how the behavior of one species is affected by the other species) on both sides of the relationship, as well as the need for ‘‘more-than-human’’ public spaces. Given the pressures on the presence of dogs and the fact that the presence of animals, especially of dogs, is not taken into account in city planning, an ultimate aim of this study is to address issues of dog legislation and amenities for the management of the urban environment in these contexts because dogs and their owners appear to be regulated in separate places or practices (see the study of planned and actual use of areas by dog–owner dyads mentioned previously).


Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse

Parc Jugan

Methods Study Areas Observations were performed in a street, a park, and a square in the city of Lyon (4,800 ha; 445,000 inhabitants), France (Figs. 1, 2 present the locations in Lyon of the three areas observed).

Place Sathonay

Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse This 800 m–long one-way street is located in a very lively and busy part of the old city centre; it is mostly lined with shops and old houses, and has vehicle parking spaces on both sides of the street. The sidewalks are generally narrow (1–2 m on average), and no specific places are designated for dogs. Observations were performed on a 200-meter portion of the street, which includes a small square with an open-air market that operates every day except Mondays. The site is a residential and shopping area. Parc Jugan Parc Jugan is an enclosed park that covers an area of more than 10,700 m2. The park stands at a crossroads and has three entrances: one on the corner and two others on each side. Offices and residential buildings surround the park. The central part of the park has grass with some trees and a path. There is another path with benches that circles the park; a third path leads to a children’s playground. A final path follows the road and is separated from the street by hedge plants. Place Sathonay Place Sathonay is a rectangular square (approximately 1,800 m2) situated in a lively city-centre district. The square is bordered by a one-way street where vehicles can

123

Fig. 1 The three areas: Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse, allowed to on-leash dogs, and Parc Jugan and Place Sathonay, forbidden to dogs

be parked. Bars and restaurants surround the square, which can be accessed by four entrances. Hedge plants separate the square from the streets. Inside the square, there are trees, benches, and a statue. The site is in a residential and shopping area. Seven streets, one alley, and one flight of steps open onto the square. According to dog legislation in France, every dog must be on a leash when in a public area, such as a street (Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse). In France, dogs are not allowed in green spaces, gardens, and squares, including Parc Jugan and place Sathonay. Some areas initially forbidden to dogs can be allowed to them (with a leash or without) if requested by the inhabitants and the municipality. This can occur in the city of Lyon and more generally in France by specific authorization, which can later be withdrawn. Figure 2 presents the locations in Lyon of dog parks (as of 2010, there were three ‘‘Espaces partage´s’’ where people, owners, and dogs without leashes allowed in a large open area) and of areas dedicated to dogs (as of 2010, there were 37 ‘‘Espaces canins de liberte´’’ where owners and dogs off-leash are allowed in a closed area). In

Author's personal copy Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 Fig. 2 Locations in the city of Lyon of the three areas observed (black arrows), dog parks (‘‘espaces partage´s’’, light green circles), and dog-dedicated areas (‘‘espaces canins de liberte´’’, dark green squares) (Color figure online)

387

Grande rue de la Croix Rousse Place Sathonay Parc Jugan

2010, there were also 33 sanitary spaces (areas of a few m2 where dogs can foul). Areas out of bounds to dogs and green spaces where dogs are allowed but must be on leashes are indicated with signs located around the areas; owners are likely to be reprimanded by other users or required to pay a 45-euro fine if they are witnessed by a policeman doing something that is not allowed; the amount can be increased according to the behavior of the owner or of the dog. These signs have existed since dogs were banished from certain areas. In 2006, the mission animalite´ urbaine, set up in 2005, and a branch of the communaute´ urbaine de Lyon designed new signs. In 2013, half of these areas were equipped with such signs. Procedure and Participants For each area, we followed and visually observed all of the dog–owner dyads (dyads ‘‘seen’’) from the moment they entered the area until they left (focal sampling—Altmann 1974; Kovacs et al. 2004); when two or more dog–owner dyads were present in the area at the same time, one of them was chosen at random and filmed (dyads ‘‘filmed’’) (Arnberger et al. 2005). A dog–owner dyad consisted of one owner and one dog; if an owner had two dogs, two dog–owner dyads were counted and observed. One observer (E. P.-P.) stood in an inconspicuous location in both the square and the park; in the street, she walked behind each dyad. She behaved like an ordinary passer-by and was as unobtrusive as possible. None of the participants appeared to be suspicious of the observer or her intentions.

The observations took place from February to November 2010 excluding summer months and statutory holidays. Each area was observed once during the course of 1 week between 8:00 and 20:00, except on the Saturday: each area was observed twice a day during 2 hours each time. The observations for the three areas were thus completed in the space of 3 weeks.

Data Collection and Analyses The same data collection and analyses were performed for each area. Variables were chosen to answer the Who, When, How, and What questions about dogs and their owners in each outdoor urban area (see Tables 1, 2— continuation of Table 1). First, we counted the number of dog–owner dyads seen and filmed, the number of dogs seen and filmed, and the number of owners filmed. Tables 1 and 2 list the variables recorded for each dog–owner dyad filmed; most of them entailed exclusive modalities except when specified with a asterisk [*] in both tables. Basic descriptive statistics were used to illustrate the data. Chi squared tests were used to compare the modalities of the variables for each area: We tested whether actual distributions (in percentages) differed from a random distribution. For instance, for each area, we compared the distribution of small, medium, or large-sized dogs with the random distribution or we tested whether the distribution of dog–owner dyads exhibiting visual interactions and those who did not differed from a random distribution. Due to the

123



Table 1 Variables recorded for dog–owner dyads, dogs, and owners according to the questions Who, When, How, What? Who: Characteristics of filmed dogs and owners

% of crossbred versus purebred dogs % of small- versus medium- versus large-sized dogs % of male versus female owners % of teenagers versus 20–40 versus 40–60 versus [60-year-old owners % of owner alone versus accompanied by people

When (and contextual information): Day, time slots, weather, specific events, and frequentation

% of dog–owner dyads seen according to day of the week (all except Saturday) % of dog–owner dyads seen according to time-slot (8:00–10:00, 10:00–12:00, 12:00–14:00, 14:00–16:00, 16:00–18:00, 18:00–20:00) No. of dog–owner dyads seen per hour according to weather conditions (sunny, cloudy, rainy, snowy) No. of dog–owner dyads seen according to market day or not (for Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse only) No. of persons encountered per minute by filmed dog–owner dyads

How: How filmed dog–owner dyads move in urban public space

% of dogs off-leash versus on-leash versus alternated off- and on-leash % of dogs with classic versus retractable leash % of owners who had 1 versus 2 dogs % of owners who walked at a slow versus medium versus rapid pace % of dogs who walked versus those who moved at a higher speed (ran and/or walked rapidly) % of dog–owner dyads, or of dogs alone or owners alone, who stopped *(C1 time) versus those who did not stop for each variable % of stops by dog–owner dyads initiated by dogs versus owners Durations of stops by dog–owner dyads (mean and SE) % of stops at various identified locations for stops by dog–owner dyads % of stops for which the initiator (dog or owner) performed various identified actions for stops by dog–owner dyads

What: Activities of filmed dog–owner dyads

Agents and different types of interactions *(see Table 2 for details) % of dogs or owners who performed an activity* % of dogs who defecated versus those who did not % of defecations by the dogs at various identified locations % of owners who picked up feces versus those who did not % of dogs who had an impact on the environment (all marks left by dogs: defecations not picked up or all damages performed by the dogs) versus those who did not % of the different types of impacts by dogs and their locations

*

Nonexclusive modalities

low number of behavioral instances for some variables, it was impossible to perform statistical analysis; therefore, we only give only a general description (i.e., basic descriptive statistics) (Westgarth et al. 2010): In the Results section, the symbol ‘‘w’’ is used for such cases. Some modalities are nonexclusive; in the tables below and in the Results section, the symbol (*) is used as a reminder that no statistics were performed. Finally, we compared the three areas for the variables that appeared relevant according to the intra-area results (for the list of variables retained, see the table below in Interarea Comparisons under Results). As described previously, the variables were binary (e.g., crossbred versus purebred dogs, and dog-and-owner visual interaction versus no visual interaction) or there were more than two

123

modalities (among which some were partially pooled, e.g. size of the dogs, walking pace, age categories of owners, whereas all of the others were not). Crosstabs were generated to compare the modalities of the relevant variables, e.g. crossbreds/purebreds, females/males, yes/no (all types of interaction, the stops of the dyads, and their activities, e.g., owner carrying shopping goods, dog sniffing and urination). We used the Chi squared test or Fisher’s exact test when samples were too small and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for durations. Tests were performed on the number of dogs, owners, or dyads. To ensure reliability, a second person coded 20 % of the data collected for the three areas. Cohen’s kappa was used to measure interobserver agreement (Martin and Bateson 1986), and relatively high values were found for ‘‘breed


389

Table 2 Agents and different types of interactions * i.e. non exclusive modalities, for the What question Agents

Types of interactions

Variables and modalities

Dog–owner

Visual

% of dog–owner dyads for whom C1 glance or gaze of the dog toward its owner or vice versa was observed versus those for whom this was not observed % of visual interactions initiated by dogs alone versus owners alone versus both

Physical

% of dog–owner dyads for whom C1 contact (owner strokes dog, dog jumps at owner, etc.) between the owner and the dog was observed versus those for whom this was not observed % of physical interactions initiated by dogs versus owners

Vocal

% of dog–owner dyads for which C1 bark or verbal exchange from the owner was observed versus those for which this was not observed % of vocal interactions initiated by dogs alone versus owners alone versus both

Leash

% of dogs located ahead versus alongside versus behind the owners % of dogs for whom the leash was loose versus tight

Dog–dog

Visual

% of dogs for whom C1 glance or gaze at the encountered dog was observed versus those for whom this was not observed % of dogs observed who ‘‘ignored’’ versus ‘‘gazed’’ versus ‘‘gazed ? tried to approach’’ the encountered dog % of encountered dogs who ‘‘ignored’’ versus ‘‘gazed’’ versus ‘‘gazed ? tried to approach’’ the observed dog % of dogs located 0–2 m versus [2 m during encounters

Dog–other person

Physical

% of dogs for whom C1 contact (dogs play with another dog or sniff another dog, etc.) between two dogs was observed versus those for whom this was not observed

Vocal

% of dogs for whom C1 bark was observed versus those for whom this was not observed

Visual

% of dogs for whom C1 glance or gaze at the dog toward an another person or vice versa was observed versus those for whom this was not observed

Physical

% of dogs for whom C1 contact (person strokes dog, dog jumps at person, etc.) between a person and the dog was observed versus those for whom this was not observed % of dogs for whom C1 bark or verbal exchange from the other person was observed versus those for whom this was not observed

Vocal

% of vocal interactions initiated by dog alone versus person alone versus both Owner–other person

Vocal

% of owners for whom C1 verbal exchange with another person was observed versus those for whom this was not observed

types’’ .93, ‘‘size of the dog’’ .96, ‘‘estimated age categories of the owner’’ .92, ‘‘visual interactions between dog and owner’’ .86, ‘‘physical interactions between dog and owner’’ 1, ‘‘vocal interactions between dog and owner’’ 1, ‘‘state of the leash (loose or tight)’’ .88, ‘‘visual interactions between dogs’’ 1, ‘‘activity of the dog sniffing’’ .90, and ‘‘impact of the presence of the dog’’ .93.

Results Among the 306 dog–owner dyads (i.e., 306 dogs) seen in the street, 153 dog–owner dyads (153 dogs) and 146 owners were filmed. Among the 40 dog–owner dyads (i.e., 40 dogs) seen in the park, 27 dog–owner dyads (i.e., 27 dogs) and 26 owners were filmed. Among the 50 dog– owner dyads (i.e., 50 dogs) seen in the square, 33 dog– owner dyads (i.e., 33 dogs) and 31 owners were filmed. All results presented later in the text concern the filmed dogs

with the exception of the first four items in the When section, which consider dogs that were seen.

Who: Characteristics of Filmed Dogs and Their Owners Table 3 (percentages and statistical results) lists a significantly larger percentage of purebred than crossbred dogs for Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse and place Sathonay and an equal percentage of purebred and crossbred dogs for Parc Jugan. There was a significantly larger percentage of small dogs than medium or large dogs in Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse and Parc Jugan, but dog-size factor was not significant in place Sathonay. For the three areas, the majority of the owners were female, most of the owners were 20- to 40-year-olds, and the percentage of owners decreased with increasing age; there was also a larger percentage of owners who were alone rather than accompanied.

123



Table 3 Characteristics of the filmed dogs and owners for each area in percentages of owners and dogs and statistical effects for these variables

No. of filmed dogs

Grande Rue de la CroixRousse

Parc Jugan

Place Sathonay

n = 153

n = 27

n = 33

Dog type (%)

Crossbred Purebred

70.6

Dog size (%)

Small

52.3

No. of filmed owners Sex of owner (%)b Estimated owner age categories (y)

Percentage of dog-owner units

Owner status (%)

29.4

2

v = 25.9, df = 1, P \ .0001

48.1

v2 = 25.5, df = 2, P \ .0001

55.6

2

51.9 11.1

v = .04, df = 1, P = .85

27.3

v2 = 8, df = 2, P = .02

24.2

72.7

v2 = 4.9, df = 2, P = .09

Medium

20.9

Large

26.8

33.3

51.5

Male Female

n = 146 36.3 v2 = 10.9, df = 1, P \ .001 63.7

n = 26 30.8 v2 = 3.8, df = 1, P = .049 69.2

n = 31 29 v2 = 5.5, df = 1, P = .02 71

Teenager

.7

20–40

46.6

v2 = 78.7, df = 3, P \ .0001

24.2

v2 = 6.8, df = 1, P \ .01

v2 = 19.2, df = 3, P \ .001

7.7 57.7

0 71

40–60

38.4

30.8

22.6

[60

14.4

3.8

6.5

Alone

71.9

Accompanied

28.1

v2 = 28, df = 1, P \ .0001

Sig.

v2 = 5.5, df = 1, P = .02

73.1 26.9

74.2 25.8

v2 = 38.3, df = 3, P \ .0001

v2 = 7.3, df = 1, P \ .01

Sig.

45

28

22

18

24

22 15

13 13

14

13 3

20 10

8

20 8

5

30

24 22,5 17,3

20

30

22,5

19 10 7,5

10 12,4

1026,8

10

6 5

17

08:00 - 10:00 - 12:00 - 14:00 - 16:00 - 18:00 10:00 h 12:00 h 14:00 h 16:00 h 18:00 h 20:00 h

Place Sathonay (n = 50) Parc Jugan (n = 40) Grande rue de la Croix-Rousse (n = 306)

Fig. 3 Percentage of dog–owner dyads seen according to the day of the week (left) and the time slot (right) for each area. n number of dog– owner dyads seen. Sig significant global effect for the area targeted

When (Plus Contextual Information): Day, Time Slots, Weather, Specific Events, and Frequentation In Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse, frequentation according to days of the week showed significant trends: The smallest percentage of dyads was seen on Sunday and the largest on Monday (see Fig. 3, left, for the distribution of dog–owner dyads seen and Table 4 for the statistical results of the When section). The effect of time slots was also significant with the largest percentage of dyads appearing between 16:00 and 18:00 and the smallest between 12:00 and 14:00 (Fig. 3, right). The number of dyads seen per hour was largest in sunny weather (6.1) and smallest when it was raining (2.6) with 1.3 dyads seen during cloudy weather and 3.7 dyads seen when it was snowing (note the significant effect of the weather). Fewer

123

Table 4 Statistical effects for frequentation according to day of the week, time slot, and weather for each area Event characteristics


Parc Jugan

Place Sathonay

No. of dog– owner dyads seen

n = 306

n = 40

n = 50

Day of the week

v2 = 33.5, df = 5, P \ .0001 v2 = 38,6, df = 5, P \ .0001

v2 = 28.1, df = 5, P \ .0001 v2 = 11.3, df = 5, P = .045

v2 = 8.6, df = 5, P = .13 v2 = 13.4, df = 5, P = .02

v2 = 15.4, df = 3, P \ .01

v2 = 10, df = 2, P \ .01

v2 = .63, df = 2, P = .73

Time slot

Weather


391

dyads appeared during open-air market hours (mean 15.8 for all days except Monday) than when the market was closed (mean 32 only during Monday) (v2 = 5.3, df = 1, P = .02). In Parc Jugan, frequentation according to days of the week varied significantly: the largest percentage of dyads was recorded on the Monday, and the smallest on the Wednesday, followed by the Sunday (Fig. 3, left). The effect of time slots was also significant: dyads were most visible from 18:00 to 20:00, followed by the 8:00 to 10:00 and 12:00 to 14:00 time slots, and least visible between 16:00 and 18:00 (Fig. 3, right). More dyads were seen per hour in cloudy weather (1) than when it was raining (0) or in sunny weather (.5) (note the significant effect of the weather). In place Sathonay, the percentages of dog–owner dyads did not differ according to days of the week (Fig. 3, left). The effect of time slots was however significant: the largest percentage of dyads was observed at lunchtime and the smallest appeared between 16:00 and 20:00 (Fig. 3, right). The weather conditions were not linked to the number of dyads observed per hour (\0.9 in all cases). The filmed dog–owner dyads encountered a mean number of persons per minute of 10.31 for Grande Rue de la CroixRousse, 1.58 for Parc Jugan, and 1.18 for place Sathonay. How: How the Filmed Dog–Owner Dyads Move in Urban Public Spaces Table 5 (percentages and statistics) shows that most of the dogs were leashed and wore a classic leash, and were

walking rather than running, and that most of the owners were walking with one dog, in all three areas. In addition, the percentage of owners was larger for medium than for slow or fast walkers in the street and the park, whereas no significant predominance in pace was found in the square. For the three areas, there was a larger percentage of dog–owner dyads who stopped together once or more than of dogs or owners who stopped independently one from the other (*). Figure 4 (top left) and the statistical analyses (Table 6, first row) show equal percentages of dyads who stopped or did not stop together for the three areas. In addition, when both parties did stop in the street and in the park, an equal percentage of stops was initiated by the dogs and by the owners; in the square, the stops were more often initiated by the dogs than by the owners (see Fig. 4, bottom left, and Table 6, last row). The durations of the stops by the dyads were (mean ± SE): 55.88 ± 149.09 for Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse, 49.12 ± 66.81 for Parc Jugan and 20.03 ± 35.52 for place Sathonay. Percentages of owners or dogs that stopped on their own initiative were significantly fewer than percentages of those that did not stop for the three areas (see Fig. 4, top center and right, respectively, and Table 6 for statistics). These latter results for these variables were thus not explored any further. In Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse, the stops by both parties occurred on the sidewalk (70.4 %), in front of (16.4 %) or inside a shop (9.2 %), and in the gutter (3.9 %) (v2 = 171.8, df = 3, P \ .0001). When the dog initiated the dyad’s stop, the main actions were sniffing something or urinating; when the owner initiated the stop, it was primarily to look at a shop window (see SD1).

Table 5 Statistics and percentages of filmed dogs on- or off-leash according to type of leash and pace of walk for the three areas. Statistics and percentages of filmed owners with one or two dogs and according to walking pace for the three areas Dog and owner characteristics


No. of filmed dogs

n = 153

Dogs (%) leashed or not

v2 = 238.6, df = 2, P \ .0001

Parc Jugan n = 27 66.7

Place Sathonay n = 33

v2 = 14.9, df = 2, P = .03

78.8

v2 = 30.7, df = 2, P \ .0001

Leashed

92.2

Off-leash

5.9

Alternated on- and off-leash

1.9

Type of leash (%)

Classic leash Retractable leash

77.8 22.2

v2 = 44.5, df = 1, P \ .0001

80.0 20.0

v2 = 7.2, df = 1, P \ .01

75.9 24.1

v2 = 7.8, df = 1, P \ .01

Pace of dogs (%)

Walk

93.5

v2 = 115.6, df = 1, P \ .0001

70.4

v2 = 4.5, df = 1, P = .03

81.8 18.2

v2 = 13.36, df = 1, P \ .001

Faster speed No. of filmed owners Owners with 1 versus C 1 dog Walking pace of owners (%)

6.5

7.4

n = 146 1 dog

95.2

2 dogs

4.8

Slow

15.8

Medium

50.7

Rapid

33.6

25.9

v2 = 119.3, df = 1, P \ .0001 2

v = 26.7, df = 2, P \ .0001

29.6

9.1

n = 26 96.2 3.8 11.5 50 38.5

12.1

n = 31

v2 = 22.2, df = 1, P \ .0001 2

v = 6.1, df = 2, P = .048

93.5 6.5 45.2 29

v2 = 23.5, df = 1, P \ .0001 v2 = 2, df = 2, P = .37

25.8

123


93,5

57,6 42,4

63 37

55,6

44,4

Dog-owner units Dog-owner units who stopped who did not stop together together

99,3 80,8

Sig. 6,5 19,2

0,7

Owners who stopped

Owners who did not stop

Percentage of owners

85,2

Percentage of dogs

Percentage of dog-owner units

392

94,1

Sig.

9,9

9,1 14,8

Place Sathonay (n = 33) Parc Jugan (n = 27)

5,9

Dogs that stopped

Dogs that did not stop

Grande rue de la Croix-Rousse (n = 153)

Sig. Percentage of stops

71,1 54,5 47,4

45,5

28,9

52,6

Place Sathonay (n = 38) Parc Jugan (n = 33)

Stops initiated by the dog

Stops initiated by the owner

Grande rue de la Croix-Rousse (n = 152)

Fig. 4 Percentages of filmed dog–owner dyads or dogs alone or owners alone who stopped versus those who did not stop for each area (top). Percentages of stops by the dyads initiated by the dogs or the

owners filmed (bottom) for each area. n number of stops for dog– owner dyads filmed. Sig significant global effect for the area targeted

Table 6 Statistical effects for dog–owner dyads who stopped together or not, owners who stopped on their own initiative or not, dogs that stopped on their own initiative or not, and stops initiated by owners or dogs according to area Dog and owner characteristics


No. of filmed dog–owner dyads Dog–owner dyads who stopped together

Parc Jugan

Place Sathonay

153

27

33

Yes

v2 = 1.9, df = 1

v2 = 1.8, df = 1

v2 = .8, df = 1

No

P = .17

P = .18

P = .38

Owners who stopped on their own

Yes No

v2 = 142, df = 1 P = .0001

v2 = 22.1, df = 1 P = .0001

v2 = 23.5, df = 1 P = .0001

Dogs who stopped on their own

Yes

v2 = 119.1, df = 1

v2 = 13.4, df = 1

v2 = 22.1, df = 1

No

P = .0001

P = .001

P = .0001

n = 152

n = 33

n = 38

Dog

v2 = .4, df = 1

v2 = .3, df = 1

v2 = 6.7, df = 1

Owner

P = .51

P = .6

P \ .001

No. of stops for filmed dog–owner dyads Stops initiated by dog versus owner

In Parc Jugan, the stops by both parties together occurred on the path (69.7 %) or on the grass (30.3 %) (v2 = 5.1, df = 1, P = 0.02). When the dog initiated the dyads’ stops, it was mostly to sniff and to urinate; when the owner initiated the stop, he or she mostly stopped to interact with another person (see SD1).

123

In place Sathonay, all stops by the dog–owner dyads took place in the walking area that traverses the square but not at the benches (v2 = 38, df = 1, P \ .0001). When dogs initiated the stops, they were most likely to sniff or attempt to play, and when owners initiated the stop, they frequently interacted with another person (see SD1).


393

What: Activities of the Filmed Dog–Owner Dyads

physical, and vocal interactions (*). The statistical results of the following four subsections are listed in Table 7.

Agents and Different Types of Interactions Dog–owner interaction Figure 5, which shows dog– owner interactions, shows that for the three areas, the percentage of dog–owner dyads who shared one or more

We observed dog–owner, dog–dog, dog–other person, and owner–other person interactions and distinguished visual,

Table 7 Statistical results for filmed dog–owner dyads who interacted with one another (dog–owner), or filmed dogs who interacted with another dog (dog–dog) or with another person (dog–other person), according to variables studied and areasa Dog and owner characteristics


Parc Jugan

Place Sathonay

Dog–owner interaction (no. of dog–owner dyads)

n = 153

n = 27

n = 33

Dog–owner dyads who gazed at each other

Yes

v2 = 11, df = 1

v2 = 27, df = 1

v2 = 5.1, df = 1

No Dog and owner

P \ .001 v2 = 41.8, df = 2

P \ .0001 v2 = 8.7, df = 2

P = .02 v2 = 9, df = 2

Dog owner

P \ .0001

P = .014

P = .01

Yes

v2 = 10.7, df = 1, P \ .01

v2 = 8.8, df = 1, P \ .01

Gazes initiated by Dog–owner dyads who interacted physically

No

v2 = 122.7, df = 1, P \ .0001

Contacts initiated by

Dog

w

w

w

Yes

v2 = 95.7, df = 1

v2 = 13.4, df = 1

v2 = 25.5, df = 1

No

P \ .0001

P \ .001

P \ .0001

w

w

Owner Dog–owner dyads who vocalized at each other Vocalizations initiated by Position of the dogs

2

Dog

v = 32, df = 2

Owner

P \ .0001

In front

v2 = 16.4, df = 2

v2 = 10.7, df = 2

v2 = .7, df = 2

Alongside

P \ .001

P \ .01

p = .7

Loose

v2 = .7, df = 1

v2 = 1.8, df = 1

v2 = 8.8, df = 1

Tight

P = .4 n = 153

P = .18 n = 27

P = .016 n = 33

Yes

v2 = 86.4, df = 1

–

–

No

P \ .0001

Mutual ignorance

v2 = 1.4, df = 2

–

–

Visual following

P = .5

–

–

–

–

Behind Status of the leash Dog–dog interaction (no. of dogs) Dogs that visually interacted Visual behaviors during encounters

Gazed at and attempted to approach Mutual ignorance

v2 = .3, df = 2

Visual following

P = .53

Gaze at and attempted to approach Distance between the dogs (m)

0–2

v2 = 3.5, df = 1

[2

P = .06

Dog–other person interaction (no. of owners)

n = 146

n = 26

n = 31

Dogs who visually interacted with a person

Yes

v2 = 129.9, df = 1

v2 = 13.4, df = 1

v2 = 25.5, df = 1

No

P \ .0001

P \ .001

P \ .001

2

2

v2 = 25.5, df = 1

Dogs who physically interacted with a person

Yes

v = 145.1, df = 1

v = 13.4, df = 1

No

P \ .0001

P \ .001

P \ .001

Dogs to whom passers-by talked

Yes

–

v2 = 19.6, df = 1

–

No

P \ .001

a

w = Statistical analyses cannot be computed due to the small number of behavioral observations – no occurrences

123

Author's personal copy Percentage of dog-owner units, dogs and owners

394


100 69,7 63,4 24,2 18,5 5,2 Visual

Physical DOG-OWNER

14,86,1 12,4 0

0

0

10,5

1,3 Vocal

Visual

Physical DOG-Dog(s)

14,86,1

0

0

0 1,3 Vocal

14,86,1

3,9

1,3

0

Visual

Physical

Vocal

DOG-Other person

15,46,5

7,4 0

2,7 Vocal

Place Sathonay (n dog-owner units = 33; n dogs =33; n owners = 31) Parc Jugan (n dog-owner units = 27; n dogs =27; n owners = 26) Grande rue de la Croix-Rousse (n dog-owner units = 153; n dogs =153; n owners = 146)

OWNEROther person

Fig. 5 For each area, percentages of (1) filmed dog–owner dyads who interacted together (dog–owner), (2) filmed dogs that interacted with another dog (dog–dog), (3) dogs that interacted with another person (dog–other person) in visual, physical, and vocal interactions,

and (4) filmed owners who interacted vocally with another person (OWNER-Other person). n number of filmed dog–owner dyads, dogs, and owners

visual interaction was larger than the percentage of dyads who had one or more physical or vocal interaction (*). In Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse, a significantly larger percentage of dog–owner dyads (63.4 %) looked at their partner than did not (see Fig. 5). Significantly more looks were initiated by the owner (61.1 %) than by both the dog and the owner (34.7 %) or by the dog (6.3 %). There were very few physical contacts (see Fig. 5), and 100 % of them were initiated by the owner (w). Vocalizations occurred in 10.5 % of the dyads (see Fig. 5), contrasting significantly with a large percentage of dyads who did not vocalize; vocalization was always by the owner. The dogs were significantly more often positioned in front of (43.8 % of the dogs) or alongside as their owners (37.9 % of the dogs) than behind them (18.3 % of the dogs); the percentages of dogs with a loose (53.5 %) or tight leash (46.5 %) did not differ. In Parc Jugan, all dog–owner dyads exchanged gazes (see Fig. 5, dog–owner interaction); most of these gazes were initiated by both parties (51.9 %) or by the owners (40.7 %) rather than by the dogs (7.4 %). The percentage of dyads (18.5 %) that interacted physically with one another differed significantly from the percentage who did not (see Fig. 5); among these interactions, 80 % were initiated by the owners and 20 % by the dogs (w). Vocalizations occurred only in 14.8 % of the dyads, a percentage that significantly differed from dyads who did not vocalize (see Fig. 5); vocalizations were always performed by the owner (w). The percentage of dogs walking in front of their owners (63 %) was significantly larger than those that were walking beside (18.5 %) or behind their owners (18.5 %); the percentage of dogs with loose (35.0 %) and tight (65.0 %) leashes did not significantly differ. In place Sathonay, in a significant majority of the dyads (69.7 %), one partner gazed at the other (see Fig. 5, dog–

owner). Visual interaction was initiated significantly more often by both parties (52.2 %) or by the owners (43.5 %) than by the dogs (4.3 %). One quarter of the dyads had physical contact with one another, a percentage that significantly differed from that of the dyads who did not touch each other (see Fig. 5); among these interactions, 87.5 % were performed by the owners and 12.5 % by the dogs (w). Vocalizations occurred in few dyads, and most did not interact vocally, with a significant difference for the two cases (see Fig. 5); vocalizations were always performed by the owner (w). The positions of the dog with respect to its owner did not significantly vary markedly: in front (33 %), alongside (39.4 %), and behind (27.3 %). The leash was more often loose (72.4 %) than tight (27.6 %).

123

Dog–dog interaction In Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse, the dogs were more likely to have one or more visual interaction with a newly encountered dog than to have physical or vocal interactions (* in Fig. 5, dog–dog interaction). The percentage of dogs that visually interacted with another dog was smaller (12.4 %) than that of dogs that did not (see Fig. 5). The percentages of dogs that ignored a newly encountered dog (39.13 %), that visually followed the newly encountered dog (21.74 %) and that gazed at and attempted to approach another dog (39.13 %) did not differ. Similarly, 30.43 % of the newly encountered dogs ignored the dogs in the observed dyads, 30.43 % returned their gaze and 39.13 % gazed at and attempted to approach the dog; these percentages did not differ as well. The majority of dogs (69.6 %) remained 0 to 2 m apart and 30.4 % remained more than 2 m apart, percentages that did not significantly differ. Few dogs sniffed the head of the encountered dog or barked (two cases for each) what significantly contrasted with dogs that did not (v2 = 145.1, df = 1, P \ .0001


and v2 = 145.1, df = 1, P \ .0001, respectively); see Fig. 5. In Parc Jugan and place Sathonay, no dog interacted with other dogs; see Fig. 5. Dog–other person interaction In Grande Rue de la CroixRousse, dogs were more likely to have one or more visual interactions with another person than to have physical or vocal interactions with another person (see * in Fig. 5, dog–other person interaction). Only 3.9 % of the dogs interacted visually with another person, a percentage that significantly differed from that of dogs that did not. Two dogs had physical contact with a person encountered, whereas the majority did not, with the percentages significantly differing; no vocalizations occurred (see Fig. 5). In Parc Jugan and place Sathonay, equal percentages of dogs had one or more visual or physical interactions with another person, whereas fewer dogs had vocal interactions with people (see * in Fig. 5). In Parc Jugan, few dogs had visual (14.8 %) or physical (14.8 %) interactions with people, percentages that significantly differed from that of dogs that did not; two dogs were talked to by passers-by, a percentage that significantly differed from that of dogs that were not (see Fig. 5). In place Sathonay, only two dogs interacted visually with people and had physical contacts with a person; these percentages significantly differed from that of dogs that did not; there were no vocalizations between dogs and passers-by (see Fig. 5). Owner–other person interactions Few owners talked once or more to a third party: 2.7 % in the street, 15.4 % in the park, and 6.5 % in the square (see Fig. 5, owner–other person interactions). These percentages significantly differed from percentages of people who did not talk to anybody (street: v2 = 130.4, df = 1, P \ .0001; park: v2 = 12.5, df = 1, P \ .001; square: v2 = 23.5, df = 1, P \ .0001). Owner and Dog Activities (*) For each area, the percentages of dogs and owners who performed one or more activities are presented in detail in Table SD2 (*) in the supplemental file. In the three areas, dogs performed two main activities (sniffing and urinating) while owners were mainly carrying things or talking with an accompanying person. Impact of the Presence of Dogs on the Environment In Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse, 3.3 % (5 cases) of the dogs defecated in the street, a percentage that differed from that of dogs that did not (v2 = 133.7, df = 1, P \ .0001). Sixty percent of the defecations occurred in the gutter and

395

40 % on the sidewalk (w). Forty percent (2 cases) of the owners picked up the feces (w), and 18.3 % of the dogs had some sort of impact on the local environment (v2 = 61.5, df = 1, P \ .0001): They urinated against walls or dustbins in most cases. In Parc Jugan, only one dog defecated (v2 = 23.1, df = 1, P \ .0001) on the grass (w) and the owner left the feces (w). 25.9 % of the dogs had impact on the park environment (v2 = 6.3, df = 1, P = .012): they mostly urinated against dustbins, on the grass and on plants. In place Sathonay, one dog defecated (v2 = 29.1, df = 1, P \ .0001) in the square (w). The owner picked up the feces (w). In this area, 18.2 % of the dogs had an impact on the local environment (v2 = 13.4, df = 1, P \ .001): In most cases they urinated against the wire fence and trampled the plants. Interarea Comparisons The list of variables retained (n = 27) as appearing relevant according to the intra-area results and the comparisons between areas are listed in Table 8. Values (in percentages, numbers, or durations) for each area and for the variables selected are available in the description of previously mentioned results The areas did not differ for 12 variables: crossbred versus purebred dogs, female versus male owners, alone versus accompanied owner, classic leash versus retractable leash, dog(s) per owner, stops per dyad, stop duration, dog–owner vocal interaction, dog location (ahead versus alongside versus behind), dog–other person visual interaction, urination versus nonurination, and impact versus no impact.

Discussion This study is the first exhaustive observation of dogs and owners in urban environments, and it contributes to rebalancing approaches to animal geography by focusing on these two users together (Hodgetts and Lorimer in press). It provides an overview of the characteristics of dogs and their owners moving through urban areas and sheds light on the times of day and days of the week when they were present in public spaces, on the manner in which they moved, and finally on the activities performed by the two parties. Importantly, three areas were targeted in the city centre of Lyon’s urban community (France): a street where dogs must be on a leash as well as park and a square where dogs are forbidden. The observations cast light on the role of places regarding these issues as well as on discrepancies between planned and actual use and how hybridity between dogs and owners and the need for more-than-human spaces play out in outdoor built-up areas.

123



Table 8 Statistics for the comparisons of the three areas for the main relevant variables (v2 or Fisher’s exact test when samples were too small and ANOVA for the durations) Variables and modalities

Interarea comparisons

Crossbred versus purebred dogs (D)

v2 = 4.1, df = 2, P = .13

Small versus medium ? large dogs (D)

v2 = 9.2, df = 2, P = .01

Female versus male owners (O)

v2 = .78, df = 2, P = .677

20- to 40-year-olds versus other categories (O)

v2 = 6.5, df = 2, P = .04

All age categories of owners (O)

P = .037, Fisher’s exact test

Alone versus accompanied owner (O)

P = 1, Fisher’s exact test

Dogs seen (D) Pedestrians encountered by the dyads

v2 = 344.4, df = 2, P \ .0001 v2 = 1221.1, df = 2, P \ .0001

Weather (sunny versus cloudy versus rainy versus snowy days) (Dy)


Off-leash versus on-leash dogs (D)

P \ .001, Fisher’s exact test

Classic leash versus retractable leash (D)


Dog(s) by owner (O)


Walking pace (slow versus medium ? rapid) of the dyad (O)


Stops by the dyads versus no stops (Dy)

v2 = .55, df = 2, P = .76

Duration of the stop by the dyads

F = 1.26, df = 2.221; P = .28

Dog and owner visual interaction versus no visual interaction (Dy)

v2 = 14.4, df = 2, P \ .001

Dog and owner physical interaction versus no physical interaction (Dy)


Dog and owner vocal interaction versus no vocal interaction (Dy)


Dog location (ahead versus alongside versus behind) (D)


Leash loose versus leash tight (D)

v2 = 6.9, df = 2, P = .03

Dog–dog visual interactions versus no interaction (D)


Dog–other person visual interactions versus no interaction (D) Owner–other person vocal interactions versus no interaction (O)

P = .06, Fisher’s exact test P = .02, Fisher’s exact test

Sniffing versus no sniffing (D)

v2 = 11.9, df = 2, P \ .01

Urination versus no urination (D)


Encumbered versus unencumbered (O)

v2 = 8.1, df = 2, P \ .05

Impact versus no impact (D)

v2 = .89, df = 2, P = .64

Tests were performed on the number of dogs (D), owners (O) or dyads (Dy)

Who: Characteristics of Filmed Dogs and Owners Percentages of crossbred and purebred dogs did not significantly differ between the areas, and converged with percentages recorded earlier (75 % for purebreds and 25 % for crossbreds, FACCO/TNS Sofres 2010). Tesfom and Birch (2013) showed that a dog owner’s temperament influenced the choice of the dog breed. A large part of an owner’s identity is thus tied to another living being. Dogs were mostly small in Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse and Parc Jugan, but this was not the case in place Sathonay. In addition, this latter area had a higher concentration of 20- to 40-year-old owners than the other two areas. Therefore, it is possible to surmise that younger owners (i.e., more active) tend to have big dogs rather than small ones. Because large dogs usually require more space and exercise, these results interestingly suggest the existence of two types of dog-owner populations. In addition, the dogs seen were more frequently walked by women than

123

men in the three areas, which converges with previous evidence of women having greater implication for their pets (Eldridge and Gluck 1996; Kidd and Kidd 1989). In addition to showing that walking a dog was a trend in the young adult population in the three areas, the percentage of owners decreased with increasing age. Another observation is that owners walked their dogs alone rather than accompanied; only interviews could disambiguate the reason(s): Dogs could act as companions on daily outings and highlight the human–dog bond (Hart 1995), or the dog could be taken out for its needs (for a walk, to a park, or to the vet). Our study thus shows that the owner and dog population is specific but homogenous across urban outdoor spaces for most of the characteristics recorded, except for the size of dogs and the age of the owners, which suggests two types of dog-owner population. This suggests that geographical areas partly shape the characteristics of the urban human– dog population.


When (Plus Contextual Information): Day, Time Slots, Weather, Specific Events, and Frequentation Another major question of our study considered the effect of social and environmental constraints on the density of dog–owner dyads. More dyads were seen in the street where dogs were allowed on-leash (n = 306) compared with the park (n = 40) or the square (n = 50) where dogs were forbidden; however, it is worth noting that the legislation thus did not fully control the presence of dyads in the latter two areas. This recalls Power’s conclusions (2008) on indoor practices of families who own a dog: The owners’ behavior suggested that they were meeting the care needs of their dogs as individuals and also of their dogs as a species (we can suspect the need for green areas for dog-specific needs, sniffing, or playing). These practices might be the result of knowledge on dogs obtained from the media (Urbanik 2012) or from the behaviors of dogs that communicate some of their needs (Gaunet 2008, 2010; Gaunet and Deputte 2011 - whether intentionality is involved remains debated in the field of cognitive ethology, but apparent intentionality is confirmed). The number of observed dog–owner dyads differed across areas according to weather, day of the week, time slot, or markethours. Indeed, frequentation of the three areas differed according to weather, and only the frequentation of place Sathonay remained unaffected by different weather modalities. The variations according to day of the week, time slot, and market-hours show that dyads adjusted to social constraints. For instance, for the three areas, Sunday was avoided, there were fewer dyads when the market was operating than when it was closed, and owners avoided the square between 16:00 and 20:00 when it was most frequented by people and children after work and school. However, days of the week had almost no bearing on frequentation of the square, probably because it is an essential thoroughfare for pedestrians seeking to move between the town centre and the Croix-Rousse district, and it is an area with the densest percentage of 20- to 40-year-old owners. All of these results support the data recorded by Lee et al. (2009) in a different type of area, according to which the use of a park (where dogs were off-leash) by dyads varied considerably depending on days of the week, time of day, and weather. Finally, the dyads encountered more pedestrians in the street (approximately 7.6 times more) and the number of dyads was greater in the street (approximately 6.9 times more) than in the other two areas. Therefore, dog–owner dyads did not avoid high densities of pedestrians but tended to avoid market day, thus showing sensitivity to social constraints. Overall, dog–owner dyads adjusted their presence according to a complex equation involving ecological and anthropogenic features, such as legislation, day of the week

397

and time of day, weather, market-hours, and density of pedestrians. These adjustments differed across areas, thus confirming the effects of local places on presence. Dyad practices followed social and legislative constraints while taking part in urban life, but they also transgressed legislation for the dogs, although they observed more social constraints (note the specific periods of time for the appropriation of forbidden areas). These practices first fit the observations by Urbanik and Morgan (2013), i.e., the hybridity of the dyads and a need for more-than-human areas; second, they raise concerns for the environmental management of dogs and their owners (e.g., need for dedicated areas for dogs as well as areas shared with all other citizens). How: Filmed Dog–Owner Dyad Movement in Urban Public Space As expected, most dogs were on leashes (66.7 to 92.2 %). Interestingly, despite legislation and a high density of pedestrians, 7.8 % of the dogs were off their leashes in the busy street, and more dogs (33.3 and 21.2 %, respectively) were off-leash in the fenced park and the square forbidden to dogs. Previous literature on the use of the leash shows that 73.5 % of dogs were off-leash in parks where dogs were allowed off-leash (Wells 2006), and Westgarth et al. (2010) recorded 73 % of dogs off-leash during the week and 61 % on-leash at the weekend in parks, in fields, and on beaches (legislation not mentioned). According to Westgarth et al. owners keep their dog on a leash for security reasons when the area is busy. This may also be the case in the present areas, and it is also confirmed by the predominant use of classic leashes in all areas. Along with the presence of off-leash dogs in the two forbidden areas, these results suggest that leash use depends in part on the constraints of the areas (properties of the terrains, social constraints/possibilities linked to the presence of other dogs and users) and the particular dog legislation. There appeared a marked need to let dogs off their leashes appeared, thus converging with Power’s conclusions (2008). We also found that although 17.6 % of dog owners in France have two or more dogs (FACCO/TNS 2010), only 6.5 % of owners went outside with two dogs: Outings with two dogs might not be appropriate in the city center. Results also show that, globally, dogs and owners adjusted their walking pace to one another. Owners walked normally and rapidly in the street and the park, whereas in the square all walking speeds were observed. A larger percentage of dogs moved at a higher speed in the park and the square than in the street: Indeed, many dogs were off-leash in these two areas, which suggests that the areas were used to meet dogs’ needs or supposed wishes. For the three areas, there were few stops by the dog or the owner alone,

123


and an equal percentage of dyads either stopped or did not stop together. This suggests that within the dyad, they synchronized their walking. More stops were initiated by the dogs in place Sathonay than in the other areas (e.g., dogs attempted to play). The stop durations did not significantly differ across the three areas, and the dyads stopped primarily along the main path in the area. When the dogs initiated a stop of the dyad, it was mainly to sniff the ground and urinate in all three areas, although in place Sathonay the dogs also attempted to play. When the owner initiated the stop, he or she stopped to look at shop windows in the street and to interact with a person in the park or in the square. Therefore, the study showed both transgression and compliance (and integration into the urban life of citizens) with respect to legislation and social constraints, a specific adjustment to urban areas, and synchronization of general practices (although these naturally differed between humans and dogs), which evidences consideration of the agency of dogs and of reciprocal relationships (Fox 2006; Nast 2006a, b) as a basis for hybridity. Transgressions (offleash dogs and appropriation of space when not allowed) could here also justify the need for more-than-human areas. What: Activities of Filmed Dog–Owner Dyads Agents and Different Types of Interactions Another major question concerned interactions between dyads and other dogs or other people. For the three areas, it is striking to note that more dyads visually interacted with their dogs than interacted tactually or vocally. This is congruent with gaze being used as a channel for dog– human communication (Gaunet 2008, 2010; Gaunet and Deputte 2011; Virańyi et al. 2004). More dyads interacted visually and physically in the park and in the square than in the street; vocal exchanges were few and were similar in all three areas. Whereas in the street visual interactions were mostly initiated by the owner, e.g., keeping an eye on the dog, both parties initiated them in the other two areas. These results show that visual (as well as physical) interactions were not favored in the street. The percentages of dogs in different position with respect to their owners did not significantly differ across the areas. In addition, in the first two areas, equal percentages of dogs were on a loose or tight leash, and in place Sathonay more dogs were on a loose leash. These results reflect a synchronized and silent walk by the dyad (see also Sect. 5.3). Additional analysis shows that for the three areas pooled, owners more often vocalized toward their dog (P \ .0001, Fisher’s exact test) and more dyads had visual exchanges (P \ .001, Fisher’s exact test) than did not when the dogs were off-leash rather

123


than on-leash: The leash is treated as a means of communication for walking side by side. Because dogs are banned from the park and the square, this accounted for the lack of interaction among dogs. In the street, the interactions were mainly visual although, interestingly, few in number even when half of the dogs were near one another. We recorded only two occurrences of barks (cf. Szabo´ et al. 2009 for the importance of intraspecies vocalisations) and no aggression among the dogs. This can certainly be primarily explained by the paucity of dog–dog encounters and, furthermore, by the fact that only half of aggressions of this type happen in public environments (streets 26.2 %, parks 24.3 %; public buildings 5 %) and that in 56.3 % of cases, dog fights occur when the dogs are off-leash (Roll and Unshelm 1997). The results do not show that people interacted much with dogs; such interactions were most prominent in the area where people spend time, i.e., Parc Jugan. Similarly, interactions between owners and people, although few, were more frequent in the park than in the other two areas; in the areas studied here, the evidence did not suggest that dogs a have a social facilitation effect. We observed no dog aggression toward people or owners. Indeed, Van de Kuyt (2001) showed that only 19 % of dog bites directed at humans happen outside private homes. Similarly, when the owners stopped, they interacted primarily with people; we witnessed no negative behaviors between people. Overall the dyads mutually adapted their walk by means of visual exchanges and the leash, and richer reciprocal and multimodal interactions were more common in areas containing green spaces. Dog–dog interactions were interestingly few in these areas, and few barks and no aggression were observed. This highlights the fact that the human–dog relationship (Wilson 1984) adjusts to local constraints through interaction so as to blend into the pedestrian dynamic, thus showing the extent of hybridity. Owner–dog activities and impact of the presence of dogs on the environment The two main activities performed by the dogs were sniffing the ground and urinating. They sniffed more in the park (earth and grass) and in the square (earth) than in the street, probably because of the nature of the ground; urination did not vary from one area to another for this species-specific behavior. Sniffing is considered to be a species-specific exploratory behavior that is especially used to obtain information about conspecifics (Siwak et al. 2001); afterward, dogs may urinate and defecate on urine or feces present (Fox 1984). Most dogs preferred to urinate on an upright support. For their part, the owners went about their business; more than one third of them were carrying


shopping or bags in all three areas, suggesting that the purpose of the outing could be walking the dog as well as performing other day-to-day activities. Our study detected little negative impact of dogs on the environment (n = 41 of 213 dogs filmed); the negative impact consisted primarily of urination. The percentage of dogs that had a potentially negative impact on their environment did not differ across the areas studied. Only seven dogs defecated during the observation periods, whereas three owners picked up the feces. This converges with Arhant and Troxler (2009), Wells (2006), and Westgarth et al. (2010), who respectively reported that 56.2, 53.5, and 63 % of owners picked up the feces. In summary, interestingly, although owners apparently walked about in a purposeful manner (carrying shopping or talking to people) and dogs sniffed the ground and urinated (species-specific behaviors that were respected by the owners), with very minor environmental impact, the presence of dogs appeared to go virtually unnoticed in the three areas.

Conclusion We have been able for the first time to paint a portrait of owners and their dogs and their practices in three specific outdoor built-up areas. We showed that the population of dog–owner dyads had specific characteristics. We also evidenced that the different areas shaped frequentation patterns, use of the leash, activities, and interactions. Noise nuisance and impact on the environment were almost nonexistent. The data indicated synchronous behaviors between the members of dyads, which highlights a specific bond (Hart 195) as well as hybridity. Most importantly, it appeared that although dogs and owners followed the legislation and thus blended into the urban dynamic, they also transgressed legislation to enhance the range of activities of the dogs and satisfy their needs as long as social constraints were not under threat (e.g., security, feces); accordingly, interactions of the dyads with third parties (dogs and people) were few in such areas. The results of the present study thus challenge the status of dogs: Self-agency, ‘‘animalness,’’ and difference seem to be accommodated, thus converging with the observations by Power (2008), Nast (2006b), and Fox (2006). The study also highlights how the need for more-than-human spaces (Urbanik and Morgan 2013) can be seen in outdoor urban areas. It thus explains how dogs and their owners have come to be regulated in separate places or practices, for instance, as in the case of dog parks in the United States (Urbanik and Morgan 2013). A few small areas are specifically dedicated to dogs’ needs and there are a few areas where walks and exercise off-leash are allowed in Lyon.

399

This shows that nonowners and dog–owner dyads are partially set apart, whereas the practices of the dog–owner dyads show a softening of the boundaries between the two species. Dog parks in Lyon appeared in 2009 (three exist at the moment), which is 30 years later than in the United States. It is possible that what we observed in Lyon might have led to the development of dog parks in the United States. This picture, i.e., partial transgression alongside compliance with social constraints, was quite unexpected given the legislation, which clearly confirms that dog presence is not taken into account in the areas observed. Environmental management seems to be the poor cousin of the dog-owner market [see Nast (2006) for the pet industries]. From an environmental-management point of view, data about the ‘‘animalness’’ and practices concerning dogs (Fox 2006) could encourage politicians and urban planners to view the presence of dogs in urban spaces differently. To ban dogs from a park or a square, or to request that dogs be put on leash, may not offer a solution to avoid the perceived environmental nuisance of dogs, which is, in fact, minor and might be further decreased with attitudinal and structural interventions based on local legislation [i.e., more signs and notices as well as the availability of dog waste bags (Liu and Sibley 2004)]. Rather, the unobtrusive presence of dog–owner dyads suggests that better ways of sharing outdoor built-up areas with other users are possible: The present study suggests that owners could enter an area and unleash their dog according to the presence of other users (social constraint) rather than accepting the designation of strict out-of-bounds areas to dogs and leashed dogs. This could provide an important outlet for people to interact with their dog (for training, play, etc.,) and, more generally, could enhance all types of social networks. It would make the use of these areas closer to that of dog parks; the development of amenities such as urban dog parks, as an environmental management tool, is an alternative solution. According to Urbanik and Morgan (2013), more-than-human areas contribute to urban quality of life [walking and not using a car; note the promotion of walking as a healthy and sustainable mode of transport (Middleton 2010)] and the design and management of more sustainable cities (Tarsitano 2006). Indeed, although the practice of walking is considered self-evident and instrumental, it also includes actual pedestrian experiences (roaming, encounters, etc., Middleton 2010). Although exhaustive observations of the areas were performed, the present study only focused on three representative types of areas in a single European country. Although this has been a small case study, it not only adds a new perspective to research on dogs and their owners in outdoor built-up areas, it also contributes to mapping the complexities involved in the current adjustments made by

123


these urban inhabitants. The results of the present study can serve as a model to which any city can compare and adjust the suggestions provided (according to priorities). Given the variety of urban areas, observing other types of areas varying in terrain, use, legislation about dogs, and other factors, will help refine the regulation of dog presence. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Communaute´ Urbaine de Lyon, the Association Nationale de la Recherche Technologique, Museúm 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.

References Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behavior 49:227–267 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 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 Baratay E (2011) Beˆte de somme. Points, Paris Baratay E (2012) Le point de vue animal. Seuil, Paris 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 Bekoff M, Meaney CA (1997) Interactions among dogs, people and the environment in Boulder, Colorado: a case study. Anthrozoos 10:23–31 Blanc N (2003) La place de l’animal dans les politiques urbaines. Perseé 74:159–175 Bradshaw JWS, Lea AM (1992) Dyadic interactions between domestic dogs. Anthroz 5:245–253 Collier S (2006) Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: are the laws justified? J Vet Behav 1:17–22 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 Eldridge JJ, Gluck JP (1996) Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research. Ethics Behav 6:239–256 Fabricant d’aliments pre´pare´s pour animaux familiers/Taylor Nelson Sofres (FACCO/TNS)(2010) Enqueˆte 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 Fox R (2006) Animal behaviours, post-human lives: everyday negotiations of the animal-human divide in pet-keeping. Soc Cult Geogr 7:525–537

123

Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 Gaunet F (2008) How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for food? Anim Cogn 11(3):475–483 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 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 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 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 Hobson K (2007) Political animals? On animals as subjects in an enlarged human geography. Polit Geogr 26(3):250–267 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 Jackson T (2005) Is it time to ban dogs as household pets? Br Med J 331:1278 Kerr-Muir MG (1994) Toxocara canis and human health. Br Med J 309:5–6 Kidd AH, Kidd RM (1989) Factors in adults’ attitudes toward pets. Psych Rep 65:903–910 Kovacs B, Gaunet F, Briffault X (2004) Techniques d’analyse de l’activite´ pour l’interaction homme-machine. Hermes Science Publisher, London 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 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 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 Martin P, Bateson P (1986) Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Matisoff D, Noonan D (2012) Managing contested greenspace: neighborhood commons and the rise of dog parks. Int J Comm 6(1):28–51 McNicholas J, Collis GM (2000) Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: robustness of the effect. Br J Psychol 91:61–70 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 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 Middleton J (2010) Sense and the city: exploring the embodied geographies of urban walking. Soc Cult Geog 11(6):575– 596 Municipal bylaw/Arreˆte´ municipal (1943) A bylaw that forbids dogs in squares, along paths and in public gardens where children play, Arreˆte´ interdisant la circulation des chiens sur les places, promenades et jardins publics servant d’emplacement de jeux aux enfants

Author's personal copy Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 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 Nast H (2006b) Critical pet studies? Antipode 38(5):894–906 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 Pet Food Manufacturers Association (2012) Pet population 2012. Available at: http://www.pfma.org.uk/pet-population-20082012. Accessed: 27 Nov 2013 Philo C, Wilbert C (2000) Animal spaces, beastly places: new geographies of human-animal relations. Routledge, London Power E (2008) Furry families: making a human-dog family through home. Soc Cult Geogr 9(5):535–555 Roll A, Unshelm J (1997) Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors affecting them. Appl Anim Behav Sci 52:229–242 Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS, Robinson IH (2000) A comparison of dog–dog and dog-human play behavior. Appl Anim Behav Sci 66:235–248 Rosado B, Garcıá-Belenguer S, Leoń M, Palacio J (2009) A comprehensive study of dog bites in Spain, 1995–2004. Vet J 179:383–391 Ryan RL (2005) Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas. Environ Behav 37:3–42 Savard JPL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Lands Urban Plan 48:131–142 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 Semenza JC, March TL (2009) An urban community-based intervention to advance social interactions. Environ Behav 41:22–42 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 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 Szabo´ E, Borgi M, Molna´r C, Pongraćz P, Miklo´si A (2009) Do dogs talk to each other, Field investigations on dog–dog acoustic communication. J Vet Behav 4:59

401 Tarsitano E (2006) Interaction between the environment and animals in urban settings: Integrated and participatory planning. Environ Manag 38:799–809 Tesfom G, Birch NJ (2013) Does definition of self predict adopter dog breed choice? Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark 10(2):103–127 United Nations (2008) World Urbanization Prospects. The 2007 Revision, New York Urbanik J (2012) Placing animals. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham Urbanik J, Morgan M (2013) A tale of tails: the place of dog parks in the urban imaginary. Geofor 44:292–302 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 Virańyi Z, Topa´l J, Gaćsi M, Miklo´si A, Csańyi V (2004) Dogs respond appropriately to cues of human’s attentional focus. Behav Process 66:161–172 Walsh J (2011) Unleashed fury: the political struggle for dog friendly parks. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette Wells DL (2006) Factors influencing owners’ reactions to their dogs’ fouling. Environ Behav 38:707–714 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 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 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 Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Zhang Y, Hussain A, Deng J, Letson N (2007) Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environ Behav 39:797–814

123