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

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.

Full text

1 23
Environmental Management
ISSN 0364-152X
Volume 54
Number 3
Environmental Management (2014)
54:383-401
DOI 10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8
Description of Dogs and Owners in
Outdoor Built-Up Areas and Their More-
Than-Human Issues
Florence Gaunet, Elodie Pari-Perrin &
Geneviève Bernardin

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 self-
archived 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”.

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 pre-
sence 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 pres-
sures, such as day of the week, time of day, weather, fre-
quentation, 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 for-
bidden 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 approxi-
mately 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 pre-
sence 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
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: florence.gaunet@univ-amu.fr
F. Gaunet E. Pari-Perrin
Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, UMR 7290, Aix
Marseille Universite
´/CNRS, Po
ˆle 3 C, Ba
ˆt 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
123
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
DOI 10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8
Author's personal copy

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; Urba-
nik 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
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 interac-
tions 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 func-
tional 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 sig-
nificant growth of urban dog populations presented health
concerns: Municipalities prohibited stray dogs and man-
dated the collar and the leash (Baratay 2011). In the case of
the city of Lyon, where the present case study was per-
formed, 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 non-
owners) 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
384 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
123
Author's personal copy

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 rep-
resentation 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 inter-
actions 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
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 off-
leash. 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 place-
ments 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 geog-
raphies (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 obser-
vations in such areas fit the concepts of animal geographies
that are at present in debate, i.e., animals appearing as both
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 385
123
Author's personal copy

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 prac-
tices (see the study of planned and actual use of areas by
dog–owner dyads mentioned previously).
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. 1,2present the locations in Lyon of the three
areas observed).
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 m
2
. 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 m
2
) situated in a lively city-centre district. The
square is bordered by a one-way street where vehicles can
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 for-
bidden to dogs can be allowed to them (with a leash or
without) if requested by the inhabitants and the munici-
pality. This can occur in the city of Lyon and more gen-
erally in France by specific authorization, which can later
be withdrawn. Figure 2presents 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
Parc Jugan
Place Sathonay
Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse
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
386 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
123
Author's personal copy

2010, there were also 33 sanitary spaces (areas of a few m
2
where dogs can foul). Areas out of bounds to dogs and
green spaces where dogs are allowed but must be on lea-
shes 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 obser-
ver (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 Novem-
ber 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 1and
2list 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 distri-
butions (in percentages) differed from a random distribu-
tion. 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
Grande rue de
la Croix Rouss e
Parc Jugan
Place Sathonay
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)
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 387
123
Author's personal copy

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 pre-
viously, the variables were binary (e.g., crossbred versus
purebred dogs, and dog-and-owner visual interaction ver-
sus no visual interaction) or there were more than two
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 gen-
erated 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
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 2for 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
388 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
123
Author's personal copy

types’’ .93, ‘‘size of the dog’’ .96, ‘‘estimated age catego-
ries 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 signifi-
cantly 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.
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
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
Dog–other
person
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
Vocal % of dogs for whom C1 bark or verbal exchange from the other person was observed versus those for whom
this was not observed
% 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
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 389
123
Author's personal copy

When (Plus Contextual Information): Day, Time Slots,
Weather, Specific Events, and Frequentation
In Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse, frequentation accord-
ing 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 4for 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
Table 3 Characteristics of the filmed dogs and owners for each area in percentages of owners and dogs and statistical effects for these variables
Grande Rue de la Croix-
Rousse
Parc Jugan Place Sathonay
No. of filmed dogs n=153 n=27 n=33
Dog type (%) Crossbred 29.4 v
2
=25.9, df =1,
P\.0001
48.1 v
2
=.04, df =1,
P=.85
27.3 v
2
=6.8, df =1,
P\.01
Purebred 70.6 51.9 72.7
Dog size (%) Small 52.3 v
2
=25.5, df =2,
P\.0001
55.6 v
2
=8, df =2,
P=.02
24.2 v
2
=4.9, df =2,
P=.09
Medium 20.9 11.1 24.2
Large 26.8 33.3 51.5
No. of filmed owners n=146 n=26 n=31
Sex of owner (%)
b
Male 36.3 v
2
=10.9, df =1,
P\.001
30.8 v
2
=3.8, df =1,
P=.049
29 v
2
=5.5, df =1,
P=.02
Female 63.7 69.2 71
Estimated owner age
categories (y)
Teenager .7 v
2
=78.7, df =3,
P\.0001
7.7 v
2
=19.2, df =3,
P\.001
0v
2
=38.3, df =3,
P\.0001
20–40 46.6 57.7 71
40–60 38.4 30.8 22.6
[60 14.4 3.8 6.5
Owner status (%) Alone 71.9 v
2
=28, df =1,
P\.0001
73.1 v
2
=5.5, df =1,
P=.02
74.2 v
2
=7.3, df =1,
P\.01
Accompanied 28.1 26.9 25.8
24
13 13
22 20
8
45
13
3
15 20
5
22 28
18 14 10 8
Percentage of dog-owner units
08:00 -
10:00 h
10:00 -
12:00 h
12:00 -
14:00 h
14:00 -
16:00 h
16:00 -
18:00 h
18:00 -
20:00 h
17,3 19
7,5 12,4
26,8
17
22,5
10
22,5
10 5
30
24 20
30
10 610
Place Sathonay (n = 50)
Sig.
Sig.
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. nnumber of dog–
owner dyads seen. Sig significant global effect for the area targeted
Table 4 Statistical effects for frequentation according to day of the
week, time slot, and weather for each area
Event
characteristics
Grande Rue de
la Croix-Rousse
Parc Jugan Place
Sathonay
No. of dog–
owner dyads
seen
n=306 n=40 n=50
Day of the
week
v
2
=33.5,
df =5,
P\.0001
v
2
=28.1,
df =5,
P\.0001
v
2
=8.6,
df =5,
P=.13
Time slot v
2
=38,6,
df =5,
P\.0001
v
2
=11.3,
df =5,
P=.045
v
2
=13.4,
df =5,
P=.02
Weather v
2
=15.4,
df =3,
P\.01
v
2
=10,
df =2,
P\.01
v
2
=.63,
df =2,
P=.73
390 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
123
Author's personal copy

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) (v
2
=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 Croix-
Rousse, 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 signifi-
cantly fewer than percentages of those that did not stop for
the three areas (see Fig. 4, top center and right, respec-
tively, and Table 6for 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 %)
(v
2
=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 Grande Rue de la Croix-
Rousse
Parc Jugan Place Sathonay
No. of filmed dogs n=153 n=27 n=33
Dogs (%) leashed or
not
Leashed 92.2 v
2
=238.6, df =2,
P\.0001
66.7 v
2
=14.9, df =2,
P=.03
78.8 v
2
=30.7, df =2,
P\.0001
Off-leash 5.9 25.9 12.1
Alternated on- and
off-leash
1.9 7.4 9.1
Type of leash (%) Classic leash 77.8 v
2
=44.5, df =1,
P\.0001
80.0 v
2
=7.2, df =1,
P\.01
75.9 v
2
=7.8, df =1,
P\.01
Retractable leash 22.2 20.0 24.1
Pace of dogs (%) Walk
Faster speed
93.5
6.5
v
2
=115.6, df =1,
P\.0001
70.4
29.6
v
2
=4.5, df =1,
P=.03
81.8
18.2
v
2
=13.36, df =1,
P\.001
No. of filmed owners n=146 n=26 n=31
Owners with 1
versus C1 dog
1 dog 95.2 v
2
=119.3, df =1,
P\.0001
96.2 v
2
=22.2, df =1,
P\.0001
93.5 v
2
=23.5, df =1,
P\.0001
2 dogs 4.8 3.8 6.5
Walking pace of
owners (%)
Slow 15.8 v
2
=26.7, df =2,
P\.0001
11.5 v
2
=6.1, df =2,
P=.048
45.2 v
2
=2, df =2,
P=.37
Medium 50.7 50 29
Rapid 33.6 38.5 25.8
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 391
123
Author's personal copy

In Parc Jugan, the stops by both parties together
occurred on the path (69.7 %) or on the grass (30.3 %)
(v
2
=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).
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 (v
2
=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).
Percentage of dog-owner units
Place Sathonay (n = 33)
Parc Jugan (n = 27)
Grande rue de la Croix-Rousse
(n = 153)
Stops initiated
by the dog
Stops initiated
by the owner
47,4 52,6
54,5 45,5
71,1
28,9
Sig.
Percentage of stops
Place Sathonay (n = 38)
Parc Juga n (n = 33)
Grande rue de la Croix-Rousse
(n = 152)
Dog-owner units
who stopped
together
Dog-owner units
who did n ot stop
together
55,6 44,4
63
37
57,6 42,4
Own ers wh o
stopped
Owners who did
not stop
0,7
99,3
19,2
80,8
6,5
93,5
Dogs that stopped Dogs that did not
stop
5,9
94,1
14,8
85,2
9,1 9,9
Percentage of dogs
Percentage of owners
Sig. Sig .
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. nnumber 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 Grande Rue de la Croix-Rousse Parc Jugan Place Sathonay
No. of filmed dog–owner dyads 153 27 33
Dog–owner dyads who stopped together Yes v
2
=1.9, df =1v
2
=1.8, df =1v
2
=.8, df =1
No P=.17 P=.18 P=.38
Owners who stopped on their own Yes v
2
=142, df =1v
2
=22.1, df =1v
2
=23.5, df =1
No P=.0001 P=.0001 P=.0001
Dogs who stopped on their own Yes v
2
=119.1, df =1v
2
=13.4, df =1v
2
=22.1, df =1
No P=.0001 P=.001 P=.0001
No. of stops for filmed dog–owner dyads n=152 n=33 n=38
Stops initiated by dog versus owner Dog v
2
=.4, df =1v
2
=.3, df =1v
2
=6.7, df =1
Owner P=.51 P=.6 P\.001
392 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
123
Author's personal copy

What: Activities of the Filmed Dog–Owner Dyads
Agents and Different Types of Interactions
We observed dog–owner, dog–dog, dog–other person, and
owner–other person interactions and distinguished visual,
physical, and vocal interactions (*). The statistical results
of the following four subsections are listed in Table 7.
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
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 areas
a
Dog and owner characteristics Grande Rue de la Croix-
Rousse
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 v
2
=11, df =1v
2
=27, df =1v
2
=5.1, df =1
No P\.001 P\.0001 P=.02
Gazes initiated by Dog and owner v
2
=41.8, df =2v
2
=8.7, df =2v
2
=9, df =2
Dog owner P\.0001 P=.014 P=.01
Dog–owner dyads who interacted
physically
Yes v
2
=122.7, df =1,
P\.0001
v
2
=10.7, df =1,
P\.01
v
2
=8.8, df =1,
P\.01
No
Contacts initiated by Dog www
Owner
Dog–owner dyads who vocalized at
each other
Yes v
2
=95.7, df =1v
2
=13.4, df =1v
2
=25.5, df =1
No P\.0001 P\.001 P\.0001
Vocalizations initiated by Dog v
2
=32, df =2ww
Owner P\.0001
Position of the dogs In front v
2
=16.4, df =2v
2
=10.7, df =2v
2
=.7, df =2
Alongside P\.001 P\.01 p=.7
Behind
Status of the leash Loose v
2
=.7, df =1v
2
=1.8, df =1v
2
=8.8, df =1
Tight P=.4 P=.18 P=.016
Dog–dog interaction (no. of dogs) n=153 n=27 n=33
Dogs that visually interacted Yes v
2
=86.4, df =1– –
No P\.0001
Visual behaviors during encounters Mutual ignorance v
2
=1.4, df =2– –
Visual following P=.5
Gazed at and attempted to
approach
Mutual ignorance v
2
=.3, df =2– –
Visual following P=.53
Gaze at and attempted to
approach
Distance between the dogs (m) 0–2 v
2
=3.5, df =1– –
[2P=.06
Dog–other person interaction (no. of owners) n=146 n=26 n=31
Dogs who visually interacted with a
person
Yes v
2
=129.9, df =1v
2
=13.4, df =1v
2
=25.5, df =1
No P\.0001 P\.001 P\.001
Dogs who physically interacted with
a person
Yes v
2
=145.1, df =1v
2
=13.4, df =1v
2
=25.5, df =1
No P\.0001 P\.001 P\.001
Dogs to whom passers-by talked Yes – v
2
=19.6, df =1–
No P\.001
a
w=Statistical analyses cannot be computed due to the small number of behavioral observations
– no occurrences
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 393
123
Author's personal copy

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 ini-
tiated by the owners and 20 % by the dogs (w). Vocal-
izations 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 sig-
nificantly 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 %).
Dog–dog interaction In Grande Rue de la Croix-Rous-
se, 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 inter-
acted 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 (v
2
=145.1, df =1, P\.0001
Visual Physical Vocal Visual Physical Vocal Visual
Physical Vocal Vocal
DOG-OWNER DOG-Dog(s) DOG-Other person OWNER-
Other
person
63,4
5,2 10,5 12,4
1,3 1,3 3,9 1,3 02,7
100
18,5 14,8
000
14,8 14,8 7,4
15,4
69,7
24,2
6,1 000
6,1 6,1 06,5
Place Sathonay (n dog-owner units = 33;
n dogs =33; n owners = 31)
Parc Jugan (n dog-ownerunits = 27;
n dogs =27; n owners = 26)
Grande rue de la Croix-Rousse
(n dog-owner units = 153; n dogs =153; n owners = 146)
Percentage of dog-owner units, dogs and owners
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). nnumber of filmed dog–owner dyads, dogs,
and owners
394 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
123
Author's personal copy

and v
2
=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 Croix-
Rousse, 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 signif-
icantly 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 dif-
fered from percentages of people who did not talk to
anybody (street: v
2
=130.4, df =1, P\.0001; park:
v
2
=12.5, df =1, P\.001; square: v
2
=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 (v
2
=133.7, df =1, P\.0001).
Sixty percent of the defecations occurred in the gutter and
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 (v
2
=61.5,
df =1, P\.0001): They urinated against walls or dust-
bins in most cases.
In Parc Jugan, only one dog defecated (v
2
=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 (v
2
=6.3, df =1, P=.012): they mostly
urinated against dustbins, on the grass and on plants.
In place Sathonay, one dog defecated (v
2
=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 (v
2
=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 rele-
vant 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 own-
ers, 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 re-
balancing 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.
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 395
123
Author's personal copy

Who: Characteristics of Filmed Dogs and Owners
Percentages of crossbred and purebred dogs did not sig-
nificantly 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
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 obser-
vation 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.
Table 8 Statistics for the comparisons of the three areas for the main relevant variables (v
2
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) v
2
=4.1, df =2, P=.13
Small versus medium ?large dogs (D) v
2
=9.2, df =2, P=.01
Female versus male owners (O) v
2
=.78, df =2, P=.677
20- to 40-year-olds versus other categories (O) v
2
=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) v
2
=344.4, df =2, P\.0001
Pedestrians encountered by the dyads v
2
=1221.1, df =2, P\.0001
Weather (sunny versus cloudy versus rainy versus snowy days) (Dy) P=.004, Fisher’s exact test
Off-leash versus on-leash dogs (D) P\.001, Fisher’s exact test
Classic leash versus retractable leash (D) P=.96, Fisher’s exact test
Dog(s) by owner (O) P=.87, Fisher’s exact test
Walking pace (slow versus medium ?rapid) of the dyad (O) P\.001, Fisher’s exact test
Stops by the dyads versus no stops (Dy) v
2
=.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) v
2
=14.4, df =2, P\.001
Dog and owner physical interaction versus no physical interaction (Dy) P\.01, Fisher’s exact test
Dog and owner vocal interaction versus no vocal interaction (Dy) P=.59, Fisher’s exact test
Dog location (ahead versus alongside versus behind) (D) P=.14, Fisher’s exact test
Leash loose versus leash tight (D) v
2
=6.9, df =2, P=.03
Dog–dog visual interactions versus no interaction (D) P=.012, Fisher’s exact test
Dog–other person visual interactions versus no interaction (D) P=.06, Fisher’s exact test
Owner–other person vocal interactions versus no interaction (O) P=.02, Fisher’s exact test
Sniffing versus no sniffing (D) v
2
=11.9, df =2, P\.01
Urination versus no urination (D) P=.99, Fisher’s exact test
Encumbered versus unencumbered (O) v
2
=8.1, df =2, P\.05
Impact versus no impact (D) v
2
=.89, df =2, P=.64
Tests were performed on the number of dogs (D), owners (O) or dyads (Dy)
396 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
123
Author's personal copy

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 leg-
islation 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 prac-
tices 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 market-
hours. 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 fre-
quented by people and children after work and school.
However, days of the week had almost no bearing on fre-
quentation 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 pedes-
trians 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 pedes-
trians but tended to avoid market day, thus showing sen-
sitivity 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
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 legis-
lation 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 nor-
mally and rapidly in the street and the park, whereas in the
square all walking speeds were observed. A larger per-
centage 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,
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 397
123
Author's personal copy

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 sig-
nificantly 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 win-
dows 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 (off-
leash 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; Vira
´nyi 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) inter-
actions 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
than on-leash: The leash is treated as a means of commu-
nication 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 wit-
nessed 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 con-
taining green spaces. Dog–dog interactions were interest-
ingly 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; uri-
nation did not vary from one area to another for this spe-
cies-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
398 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
123
Author's personal copy

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 envi-
ronment 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 pre-
sence 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 spe-
cifically dedicated to dogs’ needs and there are a few areas
where walks and exercise off-leash are allowed in Lyon.
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 com-
pliance with social constraints, was quite unexpected given
the legislation, which clearly confirms that dog presence is
not taken into account in the areas observed. Environ-
mental 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 per-
ceived 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 desig-
nation 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 alter-
native 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 instru-
mental, 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 repre-
sentative 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
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 399
123
Author's personal copy

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 Tech-
nologique, Muse
´um 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 observa-
tions 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) Be
ˆte 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.
Perse
´e 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) Enque
ˆte 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
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/Arre
ˆte
´municipal (1943) A bylaw that forbids dogs
in squares, along paths and in public gardens where children
play, Arre
ˆte
´interdisant la circulation des chiens sur les places,
promenades et jardins publics servant d’emplacement de jeux
aux enfants
400 Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401
123
Author's personal copy

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-2008-
2012. 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, Garcı
´a-Belenguer S, Leo
´n 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 interven-
tion 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, Pongra
´cz P, Miklo
´si A (2009) Do dogs
talk to each other, Field investigations on dog–dog acoustic
communication. J Vet Behav 4:59
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
Vira
´nyi Z, Topa
´lJ,Ga
´csi M, Miklo
´si A, Csa
´nyi 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
Environmental Management (2014) 54:383–401 401
123
Author's personal copy