Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from BMC Public Health
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E Open Access
The association between dog walking,
physical activity and owner’s perceptions of
safety: cross-sectional evidence from the
US and Australia
Hayley Christian
1,2*
, Lisa Wood
1
, Andrea Nathan
3
, Ichiro Kawachi
4
, Stephen Houghton
5
, Karen Martin
1
and Sandra McCune
6
Abstract
Background: We examined the relationship between dog walking and physical activity within and between four
US cities and Australia and investigated if dog walking is associated with higher perceived safety in US and
Australian cities.
Methods: Dog owners (n= 1113) in the Pet Connections Study completed a cross-sectional survey. Data were
collected across four study sites; three in the US (San Diego, Nashville, Portland) and a fourth in Australia (Perth).
Physical activity, local walking, dog walking, and individual and community perceptions of safety were analysed for
dog walkers and non-dog walkers for each study site. Between-city comparisons were examined for dog walkers.
Results: Across all study sites, dog walkers walked with their dog 5–6 times/week for a total of 93–109 min/week
and achieved ≥30mins of physical activity on more days/week and walked in their neighbourhood more often/
week, compared with non-dog walkers (all p≤0.01). Compared with Perth, significantly fewer dog walkers walked
in their local park in the three US study sites. San Diego dog walkers walked more often in their neighborhood/
week compared with Perth dog walkers (all p≤0.05).
In Portland, dog walkers perceived significantly more neighborhood problems and in Nashville dog walkers
perceived a significantly higher level of neighborhood natural surveillance (i.e., ‘eyes on the street’), compared with
non-dog walkers (both p≤0.05). Among dog walkers, females were more likely than males to feel safer walking
with their dog in their neighborhood (OR = 2.49; 95 % CI = 1.76, 3.53). Compared with dog walkers in Perth, dog
walkers from each of the US study sites felt safer in their neighborhood and perceived there was more neighborhood
surveillance (all p≤0.001).
Conclusion: This multi-site international study provides further support for the potential for dog walking to increase
levels of daily physical activity. Walking with a dog may be a mechanism for increasing perceptions of neighborhood
safety and getting to know the neighborhood, however significant between-country differences exist. Further
international research is required to understand the drivers for these between-country differences. Community based
programs and policies aimed at improving safety and social connectedness should consider the wider community
benefits of dog walking and include strategies for supporting more dog walking.
Keywords: Dog, Physical activity, Walking, International, Neighborhood, Safety, Community
* Correspondence: hayley.christian@uwa.edu.au
1
School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling
Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
2
Telethon Kids Institute, 100 Roberts Road, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3659-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Background
Globally, physical inactivity is a significant health
issue. Physical inactivity is the fourth leading risk fac-
tor for mortality behind high blood pressure, tobacco
use and high blood glucose and a significant factor in
rising obesity rates [1]. Cost-effective, sustainable
community based strategies for increasing physical ac-
tivity levels are required. A key determinant and
strategy for increasing physical activity is the social
support for walking provided by family and friends
[2–6]. An often over-looked source of social support
for walking is the family dog. Walking with a dog has
been shown to be an important source of motivation
and social support for dog owners encouraging them
to regularly walk [7–9].
A large proportion of the community own dogs [10].
In the US and Australia approximately 40 % of house-
holds own one or more dogs [11], while in the UK and
Europe the level of dog ownership is lower (25 %) [10].
Dog ownership, in particular dog walking, is a significant
correlate of physical activity and of meeting the recom-
mended level of physical activity required for health
benefits [12]. In a review of the evidence approximately
60 % of dog owners walked their dog for an average of
160 min per week and four walks per week [12]. Import-
antly, this review made a number of recommendations
including the need for international studies of the
human-health benefits of dog walking [12].
One of the main mechanisms through which dogs
facilitate increased physical activity is through the social
support provided whilst dog walking [7, 8, 13]. However,
dog walking also provides a number of other community
level social benefits [9, 14, 15]. Dog walking may con-
tribute to increased owner and community perceptions
of safety. Qualitative research shows that owners (par-
ticularly women) feel safer when walking with their dog
and suggests that dog ownership and dog walking may
be a deterrent for local crime [7, 9, 16, 17]. For example,
dog walkers who are regularly out and about in the
neighborhood walking with their dog may be an import-
ant source of ‘eyes on the street’. This type of natural
surveillance provides opportunities for people to moni-
tor their neighborhood, which is associated with in-
creased feelings of safety [18]. Moreover, greater natural
surveillance is associated with reduced physical disorder
(e.g., vandalism) and graffiti [19]. However, dog walking
as a potential source of natural surveillance has not been
empirically tested. Thus, considering a large proportion
of the community own a dog and on average 60 % of
owners walk their dog, investigation of the community
and individual level safety benefits of dog walking is
warranted.
Theaimofthestudywas:1)toexaminetherelation-
ship between dog walking and physical activity within
and between four cities across the US and Australia;
and 2) to investigate if dog walking is associated with
greater perceived safety in those cities. We hypothe-
sised that the relationship between dog walking and
physical activity would be consistent across cities; that
dog owners who are out and about in their local neigh-
borhood walking with their dog have more positive
perceptions of their local neighborhood; and that they
perceive there to be higher levels of natural surveillance
(‘eyes on the street’), fewer neighborhood problems and
feel safer.
Methods
Sample and procedure
The sample included all dog owners (n= 1113; 41.3 %)
participating in the Pet Connections Study. Pet Connec-
tions is a cross-sectional study designed to examine the
relationship between pet ownership and social capital,
including between and within country (US vs. Australia)
differences, and to identify pet-related factors that pre-
cipitate and maintain social connectedness in neighbor-
hoods. The methodology is reported elsewhere [14, 20],
and is briefly described here. To be eligible, participants
were required to be aged ≥18 years and to have lived in
their neighborhood for at least one year. Overall, 2692
adults participated in a cross-sectional telephone survey
across four study sites (San Diego, US n= 690, Response
Rate (RR) = 45.8 %; Nashville, US n= 664, RR = 44.1 %;
Portland, US n= 634, RR = 42.1 %; Perth, Australia n
= 704; RR = 60.2 %), yielding an overall response rate
of 47.3 %. Study site samples were representative of
the wider population in terms of sex, age group,
neighborhood socio-economic status and pet owner-
ship rates [20]. The survey was administered to coin-
cide with the autumn and early winter months in the
US (September to December 2012) and Australia
(April to June 2012).
Socio-demographic measures
Socio-demographic variables included: age, gender, high-
est education level attained (secondary or less, vocational
training, bachelor degree or higher or other), ethnicity
(US only –White/Caucasian, Hispanic or Latino Des-
cent, Black/African American, Asian and Other), coun-
try of birth (Australia only –Australia or Overseas),
number of dependents <18 living at home, number of
years lived in neighborhood and type of residence
(house, duplex, townhouse or villa, apartment or flat or
other). Participants were also asked whether they owned
adog[21].
Physical activity measures
Number of days per week participants reported
≥30 min of moderate-vigorous physical activity were
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 2 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
recorded [22]. Participants reported the frequency and
location (e.g., park, streets, beach/river) of where they
walked or jogged in their neighbourhood in a usual
week. These items were based upon the Neighborhood
Physical Activity Questionnaire (NPAQ), which has
acceptable reliability [23]. Items from the Dogs and
Physical Activity (DAPA) tool were used to collect fre-
quency and duration of dog walking per usual week
[21]. These items have excellent test-rest reliability (fre-
quency of dog walking/week intra-class correlation
(ICC) = 0.98; duration of dog walking/week ICC = 0.94)
[21]. Dog owners who reported that they walk or jog
with their dog (s) were classified as ‘dog walkers’.
Perceptions of safety and the neighborhood
General neighbourhood perceptions of safety were
based on existing scales. The ‘Feel Safe In Neighbor-
hood’scale was based on four items (i.e., Feel safe:
walking alone in daytime in neighborhood; walking
alone at night in neighborhood; using parks in neighbor-
hood; and in own home) (Cronbach’sα= 0.78) [24, 25].
The ‘Neighborhood Natural Surveillance’scale included
three items (i.e., see people out walking and jogging;
people in neighborhood feel it is a safe place to live; and
few people walk down my street) (Cronbach’sα=0.50)
[14, 24]. Participants also reported whether their percep-
tion of neighborhood safety was enhanced by three items
relating to natural surveillance (i.e., I feel safer when I see
people walking; I feel safer when I see people out walking
with their dog; and I feel less safe when I see deserted
streets and parks) (Cronbach’sα= 0.60) [24]. All items in
scales were measured using a 4-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree). Items in each scale
were summed and then averaged.
The perceived potential ‘Neighborhood Problems’
scale measured graffiti and/or vandalism, crime, traffic,
neighborhood maintenance (6 items: inadequate light-
ing at night, houses or yards not well looked after, poor
upkeep of parks and public open space, trash or litter
in public areas, vacant or run-down buildings, and poor
street lighting) and social incivilities (3 items: noisy
neighbours or loud parties, drug dealing or drug use,
people not cleaning up after dogs) [24–28]. All items in
this scale were measured using a 4-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree). Items were
dichotomised (agree vs. disagree) and summed (range
0–12) (Cronbach’sα= 0.89). Details of this measure are
reported elsewhere [29].
Two items measured neighborhood perceptions spe-
cifically in relation to dog walking. Owners reported
whether being with a dog helped them to feel safer
when out walking or jogging and whether walking or
jogging with their dog enabled them to get to know
their neighborhood (dichotomous: true/false) [14].
Statistical analyses
Analyses were restricted to dog owners only (N= 1113).
Chi-square tests were used to examine socio-demographic
differences between dog walkers and non-dog walkers for
each study site and overall. Linear regression was used to
examine the relationship between dog walking status
(independent variable) and days/week of ≥30mins of
moderate-vigorous physical activity and frequency of
walking in the neighbourhood/week (dependent vari-
ables). Logistic regression was used to examine the
relationship between dog walking status (independent
variable) and if participants walked to their local park
in a usual week (dependent variable). Two models were
run for each physical activity-related dependent vari-
able; unadjusted and then adjusted for age group, sex,
highest education level, ethnicity (US), country of birth
(Australia), number of children in household, housing
type, and time lived in neighborhood. Descriptive ana-
lyses (mean and standard error) were conducted for
frequency and duration of dog walking/week. All ana-
lyses were conducted separately for each study site
with non-dog walkers as the reference group. Between
city comparisons were performed for dog walkers only
(reference site = Perth), using the Bonferroni correc-
tion procedure for hypothesis testing involving mul-
tiple comparisons.
Linear regression was used to examine the relationship
between dog walking status (independent variable) and
perceptions of safety dependent variables (Feel safe in
neighborhood; Neighborhood problems; Neighborhood
surveillance; Feel safe if have neighborhood surveil-
lance). All models were adjusted for age group, sex,
highest education level, ethnicity (US), country of birth
(Australia), number of children in household, housing
type, and time lived in neighborhood. All analyses were
conducted separately for each study site with non-dog
walkers as the reference group. Between city compari-
sons were examined for dog walkers only (reference
site = Perth) using Bonferroni correction of p-values
for multiple comparisons.
Finally, descriptive analyses were conducted by study
site and overall to examine the percentage of dog
walkers who reported that they ‘Feel safer walking with
dog’and ‘Got to know neighborhood through walking
dog’. Non-dog walkers were excluded from analyses as
our analyses were focused on dog walking only. Logistic
regression was used to examine the relationship between
gender (independent variable; reference group = males)
and the proportion of participants reporting they ‘Feel
safer walking with dog’and ‘Got to know neighborhood
through walking dog’(dependent variables). All models
adjusted for age group, highest education level, ethnicity
(US), country of birth (Australia), number of children in
household, housing type, and time lived in neighborhood.
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 3 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
All analyses were conducted separately for dog
walkers from study site and overall. Between city
comparisons were performed for a) all dog walkers
(reference site = Perth) and b) female dog walkers only
(reference site = Perth) correcting our p-values for
multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.
Results
Overall, 47 % of dog owners were male, 22 % were 40–49
years, 40 % had a bachelor degree or higher, 39 % had one
or more children living at home and 56 % of dog owners
were classified as ‘dog walkers’.
Socio-demographic factors associated with dog walking
status in the US and Australia
Overall, there were no significant associations between
age group, sex, education level, ethnicity, country of
birth, number of children living in household, time lived
in current neighbourhood or housing type by dog walk-
ing status (Table 1). The majority of US dog owners
were White/Caucasian and the majority of Perth dog
owners were born in Australia compared with overseas.
There were no significant associations between any
socio-demographic factors and dog walking status for
Perth, San Diego and Portland. However in Nashville, a
significantly higher proportion of dog walkers compared
with non-dog walkers had a bachelor degree and lived in
a townhouse or apartment (both p≤0.05).
Physical activity behavior by dog walking status in the US
and Australia
Across all study sites, on average dog walkers walked
with their dog 5–6 times per week for a total of 93–109
min per week (Table 2). Dog walkers achieved ≥30 min
of moderate-vigorous physical activity on more days per
week and walked in their neighbourhood more often per
week, compared with non-dog walkers (all p≤0.05).
These findings were consistent across all four study sites.
Similarly, across all four study sites a greater proportion
of dog walkers compared with non-dog walkers walked
in their local park (all p≤0.001). Compared with Perth,
significantly fewer dog walkers walked in their local park
in the three US study sites (80 % vs. 28–45 %; p≤0.001).
Moreover, San Diego dog walkers walked more often in
their neighborhood each week (Mean 7.6; Standard
Error (SE) 4.0) compared with Perth dog walkers
(Mean 6.4; SE 3.8; p≤0.05). Models remained signifi-
cant after adjustment for socio-demographic factors
(Additonal file 1: Table S1).
Neighborhood perceptions of safety by dog walking
status
Some variation in general perceptions of the neighbor-
hood by dog walking status was found across the four
study sites. In Portland, dog walkers compared with
non-dog walkers perceived significantly more neighbor-
hood problems (β= 2.20; 95 % CI = 0.38, 4.02) (Table 3).
Nashville dog walkers perceived a significantly higher
level of neighborhood natural surveillance, compared
with non-dog walkers (β= 0.44; 95 % CI = 0.08, 0.79).
There were no within-site differences between dog
walkers and non-dog walkers for perceived safety in the
neighborhood or perceived safety provided by other
people out walking (i.e., neighborhood surveillance).
Among dog walkers, those in the US study sites, com-
pared with those in Perth, felt safer in their neighbor-
hood, perceived that there was more neighborhood
surveillance and perceived that they would feel safer if
there were neighborhood surveillance (all p≤0.001).
Moreover, dog walkers in Nashville perceived there to be
significantly fewer neighborhood problems compared
with dog walkers in Perth (p≤0.05).
Gender differences in perceptions of safety when walking
with dog and getting to know the neighborhood through
dog walking
Dog walkers were asked about feelings of safety whilst
dog walking and whether they had got to know their
neighborhood through dog walking (Table 4). Overall
and for each study city (except Nashville), females were
more than twice as likely as males to feel safer walking
with their dog in their neighborhood (Overall: OR =
2.49; 95 % CI = 1.76, 3.53). No statistically significant
between city comparisons were observed. There were
however, between city gender differences for getting to
know the neighborhood through dog walking. Compared
with Perth dog walkers, Nashville dog walkers were less
likely to have got to know their neighborhood through
walking their dog (p≤0.05). When stratified by gender,
female dog walkers in Portland compared with Perth
were more likely to have got to know their neighbor-
hood through walking their dog (p≤0.05).
Discussion
A recent review of the evidence and meta-analysis called
for international studies of the relationship between dog
walking and physical activity [12]. Our study is one of
the first international studies to investigate this relation-
ship. Overall, our findings highlight that the proportion
of dog owners who report walking their dog and the
relationship between dog walking status and physical
activity behavior is consistent both within and between
developed countries such as the US and Australia.
Furthermore, the frequency and duration of dog walk-
ing was consistent between and within the two coun-
tries. Regardless of country or city of residence, dog
walkers reported walking their dog 5–6 times per week
(for approximately 93–109 min/week). In comparison, a
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 4 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 1 Sample characteristics by dog walking status across study sites
TOTAL (n= 1113) San Diego (n= 276) Portland (n= 233) Nashville (n= 296) Perth (n= 308)
Non-dog walker
1
(n= 490) %
Dog walker
(n= 623) %
Non-dog walker
1
(n=134) %
Dog walker
(n= 142) %
Non-dog walker
1
(n= 110) %
Dog walker
(n= 123) %
Non-dog walker
1
(n= 141) %
Dog walker
(n= 155) %
Non-dog walker
1
(n= 105) %
Dog walker
(n=203) %
Age group
2
p= 0.124 p= 0.194 p= 0.127 p= 0.166 p= 0.508
18–29 years 17.6 17.0 29.9 26.8 10.9 8.9 9.9 15.5 19.0 16.3
30–39 years 18.4 21.3 24.6 25.4 20.9 31.7 20.6 25.2 4.8 9.4
40–49 years 24.7 20.2 13.4 16.2 33.6 23.6 34.0 23.2 17.1 18.7
50–59 years 17.1 22.0 12.7 20.4 15.5 18.7 14.2 18.7 28.6 27.6
60+ years 20.8 18.6 19.4 11.3 16.4 17.1 19.1 14.2 29.5 28.1
Male p= 0.758 p= 0.381 p= 0.243 p= 0.177 p= 0.356
46.5 47.4 44.0 49.3 49.1 41.5 41.8 49.7 53.3 47.8
Highest education level
3
p= 0.102 p= 0.182 p= 0.771 p= 0.046* p= 0.607
Secondary or less 35.1 29.9 33.6 25.4 26.4 29.3 36.2 21.3 44.8 39.9
Vocational training 22.0 25.7 26.9 28.2 21.8 26.8 18.4 21.3 21.0 26.6
Bachelor degree or higher 38.0 41.6 32.1 43.0 49.1 40.7 39.7 53.5 31.4 32.0
Other 2.9 1.8 3.0 2.1 1.8 2.4 4.3 2.6 1.9 0.5
Ethnicity (US only)
4
p= 0.374 p= 0.087 p= 0.149 p= 0.674 - -
White/Caucasion 70.6 75.2 49.3 64.1 88.2 86.2 77.3 76.8
Hispanic or Latino Descent 14.5 9.5 35.8 21.8 1.8 4.9 4.3 1.9
Black/African American 7.5 8.3 6.0 6.3 3.6 0.0 12.1 16.8
Asian 2.3 2.3 4.5 2.1 0.9 2.4 1.4 1.3
Other 3.4 3.4 3.0 4.9 3.6 2.4 3.5 1.9
Country of birth (Australia only)
5
----p= 0.258
Australia 70.5 64.0
Overseas 29.5 36.0
Number of children living in
household
6
p= 0.277 p= 0.466 p= 0.608 p= 0.387 p= 0.079
None 59.0 61.2 55.2 55.6 53.6 61.8 61.0 62.6 66.7 63.5
One 14.9 17.0 14.9 21.1 15.5 9.8 19.1 18.7 8.6 17.2
Two 16.1 15.2 17.2 12.7 20.0 19.5 12.8 14.2 15.2 15.3
Three or more 9.2 6.1 11.9 10.6 9.1 8.1 7.1 3.2 8.6 3.9
Time lived in neighborhood p= 0.262 p= 0.671 p= 0.642 p= 0.275 p= 0.084
1–3 years 16.7 17.0 24.6 21.8 18.2 13.0 14.9 21.9 7.6 12.3
4–9 years 18.8 24.2 18.7 26.1 22.7 31.1 22.0 23.2 10.5 20.2
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 5 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 1 Sample characteristics by dog walking status across study sites (Continued)
10–14 years 21.0 19.1 19.4 19.0 20.9 17.9 17.0 14.8 28.6 23.2
15–20 years 13.7 12.7 9.7 7.7 12.7 12.2 13.5 16.8 20.0 13.3
More than 20 years 29.8 27.0 27.6 25.4 25.5 26.8 32.6 23.2 33.3 31.0
Housing types
7
p= 0.066 p= 0.407 p= 0.113 p= 0.007* p= 0.422
House 88.6 85.9 82.1 79.6 95.5 87.0 90.1 82.6 87.6 92.1
Duplex 4.3 2.7 2.2 4.9 2.7 1.6 6.4 2.6 5.7 2.0
Townhouse or villa 3.1 4.0 8.2 4.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.2 3.8 4.4
Apartment or flat 2.9 5.1 6.0 9.2 0.9 4.9 2.1 7.1 1.9 1.0
Other 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 0.9 3.3 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.5
*p≤0.05;
1
Reference group; Missing data:
2
12;
3
17;
4
14;
6
7;
7
5;
5
For Australia country of birth measure typically used (rather than ethnicity)
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 6 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 2 Within and between city differences in physical activity behaviour by dog walking status
San Diego (n= 276) Portland (n= 233) Nashville (n= 296) Perth (n= 308) Significant between
city comparisons
(Dog walkers)
2
Non-dog walker
1
(n= 134)
Mean (SE)
Dog walker
(n= 142)
Mean (SE)
Non-dog walker
1
(n= 110)
Mean (SE)
Dog walker
(n=123)
Mean (SE)
Non-dog walker
1
(n= 141)
Mean (SE)
Dog walker
(n= 155)
Mean (SE)
Non-dog walker
1
(n=105)
Mean (SE)
Dog walker
(n= 203)
Mean (SE)
p-value
≥30mins moderate-vigorous physical activity
(days/week)
3.5 (2.5) 4.3 (2.2)** 3.2 (2.5) 4.0 (2.2)* 2.9 (2.3) 4.1 (2.2)*** 2.8 (2.6) 3.9 (2.6)*** 0.467
Frequency of neighbourhood walking/week 2.3 (2.7) 7.6 (4.0)*** 2.1 (2.6) 6.5 (3.8)*** 1.6 (2.1) 6.7 (4.4)*** 1.9 (2.8) 6.4 (3.8)*** 0.027 PE < SD
Walk in local park (%) 17.2 45.1*** 12.7 42.3*** 11.3 28.4*** 19.0 80.3*** 0.000 PE > SD, PL,
NV
Frequency of dog walking/week - 6.0 (4.0) - 5.1 (3.6) - 5.3 (3.9) - 5.0 (3.4) 0.074
Minutes of dog walking/week - 108.6
(134.8)
- 93.5 (106.3) - 108.1
(142.9)
- 92.8 (115.0) 0.510
*p≤0.05; **p≤0.01; ***p≤0.001;
1
Reference group; SD San Diego, PL Portland, NV Nashville, PE Perth
1
Reference group = Non-dog walker
2
Reference group = Perth
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 7 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
review of the evidence reported a weekly median fre-
quency and duration of dog walking of 4 walks and
160 min, respectively [12]. These values were based on
all dog owners and the studies used varying measures of
dog walking behavior. In contrast, the current study
used the same consistent dog walking measure across all
study sites and averaged dog walking frequency and
mean minutes per week for those owners who did some
walking with their dog.
International studies provide an opportunity to deter-
mine how robust the evidence base is across countries.
They also allow a deeper understanding of the cultural
and social and physical environment influences on the
relationship between dog walking and physical activity.
Differences between dog walkers and non-dog walkers
were observed but were not consistent across all four
study sites. Nashville dog walkers perceived a signifi-
cantly higher level of neighborhood natural surveillance
and Portland dog walkers perceived significantly more
neighborhood problems, compared with non-dog
walkers. It is possible that as a result of dog walkers be-
ing out in the community walking their dog they notice
more about the neighborhood they live in and are able
to more accurately recall the features of their neighbor-
hoods whether they be positive or negative attributes. A
similar relationship has been observed in studies of the
influence of neighborhood perceptions on physical activ-
ity behavior. For example, physical activity levels were
higher in people who perceived their neighborhoods as
unclean and untidy compared with those who perceived
a high level of neighborhood cleanliness [18, 30]. Our
study observed that a high proportion of dog walkers
(77 %) reported that they had got to know their neigh-
borhood through walking their dog. Moreover, a greater
proportion of dog walkers compared with non-dog
walkers walked in their local park. It is possible that dog
walkers that are out and about in their neighborhood,
are more aware of their local neighborhood and that
their perceptions of their neighborhood environment
may more closely reflect the actual environment. Further
research is required to determine the match (or mis-
match) between perceptions and objective measures of
the neighborhood environment for dog walkers and
non-dog walkers.
Dog walking itself may provide an important source of
‘eyes on the street’. Dog owners who exercise their dog are
out and about in their neighborhood on a near daily basis,
as reflected in the mean frequency of dog walking per week
(i.e., 5–6 times/week) found in this study and a review [12].
Dog walkers physical presence in the community may con-
tribute to the collective safety of the community through
being a source of ‘eyes on the street’. Pedestrians make
streets safer, lively and interesting to watch which encour-
ages surveillance and greater visibility in the public realm
thus increasing people’s feelings of safety [18, 31, 32]. Dog
owners are highly visible while walking the streets and in
parks with their dog. Dog walkers may provide a daily
source of informal surveillance; with more natural surveil-
lance there is an increased likelihood of being observed or
‘caught in the act’which may serve to discourage potential
offenders [32]. Future research is required to confirm the
observed associations between perceived neighborhood
safety and dog walking status using large representative
samples and context-specific measures of perceived safety
associated with dog walking.
Yet, we found no differences between dog walkers and
non-dog walkers for how safe they felt in their neighbor-
hood. However, when dog walkers were asked about
how safe they felt when walking with their dog, signifi-
cant gender differences emerged. Across all study sites a
greater proportion of female than male dog walkers re-
ported feeling safer when walking with their dog. This
finding is consistent with a recent review of the corre-
lates of dog walking which identified that perceived per-
sonal safety was positively associated with dog walking
in females but not males [33]. Moreover, Suminski et al.
reported that women were over three times more likely
to walk their dog if neighborhood safety was perceived
Table 3 Within and between city differences in dog walkers and non-dog walkers perceptions of safety
San Diego (n= 276)
β(95 % CI)
1
Portland (n= 233)
β(95 % CI)
1
Nashville (n= 296)
β(95 % CI)
1
Perth (n= 308)
β(95 % CI)
1
Significant between city comparisons
(Dog walkers only)
2
p-value
Feel safe in neighborhood
3
−0.13 (−0.61,0.36) −0.01 (−0.54,0.53) 0.27 (−0.22,0.76) 0.00 (−0.43,0.47) 0.000 PE < SD, PL, NV
Neighborhood problems
4
0.98 (−0.61,2.56) 2.20 (0.38,4.02)* 0.51 (−1.07,2.09) −0.29 (−1.62,1.04) 0.08 PE > NV*
Neighborhood natural
surveillance
3
0.21 (−0.16,0.57) −0.88 (−0.45,0.28) 0.44 (0.08,0.79)* 0.29 (−0.04,0.62) 0.000 PE < PL, NV
Feel safe if have neighborhood
natural surveillance
3
0.07 (−0.29,0.43) 0.10 (−0.28,0.48) 0.20 (−0.17,0.57) 0.11 (−0.21,0.43) 0.000 PE < SD, PL, NV
*p≤0.05; SD San Diego, PL Portland, NV Nashville, PE Perth
1
All models adjusted for age group, sex, highest education level, ethnicity (US); country of birth (Aust), number of children in household, housing type, time
livedin neighb orhood; Reference group = Non-dog walker
2
Reference group = Perth
3
Measured on a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree
4
Count of neighborhood problems (range 0–12)
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 8 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 4 Within and between city differences in dog walker’s neighborhood perceptions by gender
All Dog walkers
(n= 623)
San Diego Dog
walkers (n= 142)
Portland Dog walkers
(n= 123)
Nashville Dog
walkers (n= 155)
Perth Dog walkers
(n= 203)
Significant between city
differences(Alldogwalkers)
2
Significant between city
differences (Female dog
walkers)
3
Overall % OR
1
(95 % CI) Overall % OR
1
(95 % CI) Overall % OR
1
(95 % CI) Overall % OR
1
(95 % CI) Overall % OR
1
(95 % CI) p-value p-value
Feel safer walking
with dog
58.6 2.49 (1.76,
3.53)
57.7 2.54 (1.09,
5.93)
58.5 4.17 (1.57,
11.09)
58.7 0.97
(0.45,2.07)
59.1 6.07 (2.99,
12.33)
0.971 0.277
Got to know
neighborhood
through walking
dog
77.4 0.74 (0.49,
1.11)
83.1 0.65 (0.20,
2.09)
81.3 1.60 (0.49,
5.24)
71.0 0.69 (0.29,
1.66)
75.9 0.50 (0.23,
1.08)
0.010 PE > NV 0.024 PE < PL
Bolded text = p≤0.05; SD San Diego, PL Portland, NV Nashville, PE Perth, Overall percentages are unadjusted
1
Models examining gender differences adjusted for age group, highest education level, ethnicity (US); country of birth (Aust), number of children in household, housing type, time lived in neighborhood.
Reference group = Males
2
Reference group = Perth
3
Between city differences for FEMALE dog walkers only; Reference group = Perth
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 9 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
as average as opposed to below average [34]. It appears
that there may be two ways in which safety could influ-
ence dog walking in females. First, simply having a dog
to walk with could help women feel safer and second, a
safer neighbourhood may support more dog walking. A
proposed theoretical model of the relationships between
dog walking and individual perceptions of safety and col-
lective safety is shown in Fig. 1. The proposed relation-
ships are based on the findings from the current study
as well as published findings from our own and others
studies [7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 33]. The proposed theoretical
model highlights areas for further research to provide
evidence of the relationship between dog walking and
individual-level and collective safety.
This study observed a number of between city differences
in dog walkers’neighborhood perceptions. In particular,
compared with dog walkers in Perth, dog walkers from
each of the US study sites felt safer in their neighborhood,
perceived that there was more neighborhood surveillance
and perceived that they would feel safer if there was neigh-
borhood surveillance. We also observed that a significantly
higher proportion of Perth dog walkers (80 %) compared
with dog walkers from the US study sites (range 28–45 %)
walked in their local park. It is possible that if Perth dog
walkers spend more time walking in their local park and
less time walking the streets in their neighborhood, they
may perceive lower overall levels of neighborhood safety
and natural surveillance. These between city differences in
dog walkers neighborhood perceptions may in part also be
explained by social and cultural differences in dog-keeping
(and exercising) practices as well as differences in the local
physical and policy environment surrounding walking dogs
in public [9, 35]. For example, there are significant differ-
ences between Australia and the US with respect to the de-
sign and access to public places for walking dogs. In the
US, designated fenced dog exercise spaces are more com-
mon while in Australia dogs are more often exercised at
large multi-use, multi-purpose unfenced urban parks or
along footpaths on route to the local park [8, 13, 33, 36].
Further research is required to understand the social and
cultural influences on the interaction between dog walking
behavior and the neighborhood environment.
This study was limited by its cross-sectional design and
thus causal relationships between dog walking, physical ac-
tivity and owner’s perceptions of safety cannot be inferred.
However, it involved a large representative sample from
four cities in the US and Australia and provided a unique
opportunity to investigate between and within country dif-
ferences in a relatively new area of enquiry. This study was
also limited by its use of self-report measures and did not
examine gender differences in the relationship between
dog walking status and neighborhood-level perceptions of
safety. Moreover, the internal consistency (as measure by
Cronbach’sα)forthescalesmeasuring‘Natural Surveil-
lance’were questionable thus, is it possible that these items
measure unique aspects of natural surveillance related to
safety. Future studies should explore the relationship be-
tween different constructs of natural surveillance and the
relationship with dog walking and owner’s perceived safety.
Conclusions
This multi-site international study provides further support
of the potential for dog walking to increase the proportion
of the community who engage in daily physical activity.
Fig. 1 Theoretical model of the relationship between individual and community level safety and dog walking
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 10 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Innovative strategies (e.g., promotion of dog walking) to in-
crease physical activity levels are needed in developed
countries where the burden of disease from insufficient
adult physical activity is large [37]. Individual and commu-
nity safety benefits associated with dog walking were also
apparent. Among dog walkers, women were more likely
than men to feel safer walking with their dog in their
neighborhood. Walking with a dog may be a mechan-
ism for getting to know the neighborhood and for im-
proving levels of neighborhood natural surveillance and
owner’s perceptions of safety. Significant between coun-
try differences were observed highlighting the need for
further international research on the social and cultural
influences on the relationship between dog walking and
the neighborhood environment. This appears to be one
of the first studies to investigate the relationship be-
tween dog walking and perceptions of neighborhood
safety. Further studies in this emerging area of research
may provide organisations and government depart-
ments responsible for providing community safety-
based programs and policies the evidence required to
support the wider community benefits of dog walking
and strategies for increasing dog walking levels.
Additional file
Additional file 1: Table S1. Adjusted within and between city differences
in physical activity behavior by dog walking status. (DOCX 14 kb)
Acknowledgements
Christian is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research
Council (NHMRC)/National Heart Foundation Early Career Fellowship (#1036350);
Wood (#20693) and Martin (#23347) by a Western Australian Health Promotion
Foundation (Healthway) Postdoctoral Fellowship. Ms Claire Lauritsen, Ms
Rachelle Koekemoer and Ms Pulan Bai provided administrative assistance.
Funding
WALTHAM® (a division of Mars Inc.) provided funding. The funder had some
input into the study design, but did not influence the data analysis or study
findings. The interpretation of the results and content of the manuscript
remained the final decision of the authors.
Availability of data and materials
Data have been deposited to Research Data Online at The University of Western
Australia: https://researchdataonline.research.uwa.edu.au/handle/123456789/1981.
Authors’contributions
HC conceived and designed the study, analysed and interpreted all data, and
drafted the manuscript revising it critically at each stage. LW advised on the
design of the study and interpretation and implications of findings. SH, KM, IK and
SM had input to the overall study design and contributed to the interpretation
and implications of study findings. AN assisted with data collection, analysed the
data and interpreted the findings. All authors contributed to the drafting of the
manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
SM is an employee (Research Manager) of the funder WALTHAM® Centre for
Pet Nutrition, a division of Mars Petcare. The funder had no influence on the
results reported.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethics approval was provided by The University of Western Australia Human
Research Ethics Committee (RA/4/1/5008). Formal ethics approval in the USA
was not required (as per ruling from the Chair of the IRB at the Harvard University
School of Public Health).
Author details
1
School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling
Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
2
Telethon Kids Institute, 100 Roberts
Road, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia.
3
Institute for Health & Ageing, Australian
Catholic University, Level 6, 215 Spring St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
4
School of Public Health, Harvard University, 677 Huntington Avenue, Kresge
Building 7th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
5
Centre for Child and
Adolescent Related Disorders, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling
Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
6
Waltham® Centre for Pet Nutrition,
Freeby Lane, Waltham-on-the-Wolds, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire LE14
4RT, UK.
Received: 7 September 2015 Accepted: 12 September 2016
References
1. World Health Organisation. Global recommendations on physical activity for
health. Switzerland: WHO; 2010.
2. Booth ML, Owen N, Bauman A, Clavisi O, Leslie E. Social-cognitive and perceived
environment influences associated with physical activity in older Australians.
Prev Med. 2000;31(1):15–22.
3. Leslie E, Owen N, Salmon J, Bauman A, Sallis JF, Lo SK. Insufficiently active
Australian college students: perceived personal, social and environmental
influences. Prev Med. 1999;28:20–7.
4. Sallis J, Prochaska J, Taylor W. A review of correlates of physical activity of
children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:63–75.
5. Wilcox S, Castro C, King A, Housemann R, Brownson R. Determinants of leisure
time physical activity in rural compared with urban older and ethnically diverse
women in the United States. J Epi Comm Health. 2000;54(9):667.
6. Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W. Correlates of adult’s
participation in physical activity: review and update. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2002;32(12):1996–2001.
7. Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Wood L, Knuiman M, Burke V. Barriers and motivators
for owners walking their dog: results from qualitative research. Health
Promot J Aust. 2008;19(2):118–24.
8. Christian H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M. “I’m just a’-walking the dog”correlates
of regular dog walking. Fam Community Health. 2010;33(1):44–52.
9. Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Burke V. Dog ownership, health and physical
activity: a critical review of the literature. Health Place. 2007;13:261–72.
10. Bauman A, Christian H, Thorpe R, Mcniven M. International perspectives on
the epidemiology of dog walking. In: Johnson R, Beck A, McCune S, editors.
The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for People and Pets. Evidence & Case
Studies. Indiana: Purdue University Press; 2011.
11. Australian Companion Animal Council. Australian companion animal council
Inc—Pet ownership statistics. 2010.
12. Christian HE, Westgarth C, Bauman A, Richards EA, Rhodes R, Evenson KR, et
al. Dog ownership and physical activity: a review of the evidence. J Phys
Act Health. 2013;10(5):750–9.
13. Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M. Encouraging physical activity through dog
walking: Why don’t some owners walk with their dog? Prev Med. 2008;46(2):120–6.
14. Wood L, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M. The pet connection: pets as a conduit for
social capital? Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(6):1159–73.
15. Toohey AM, McCormack GR, Doyle-Baker PK, Adams CL, Rock MJ. Dog-
walking and sense of community in neighborhoods: Implications for
promoting regular physical activity in adults 50 years and older. Health
Place. 2013;22:75–81.
16. Toohey AM. Unleashing their potential: a critical realist scoping review of
the influence of dogs on physical activity for dog-owners and non-owners.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8(1):46.
17. Knight S, Edwards V. In the company of wolves the physical, social, and
psychological benefits of Dog ownership. J Aging Health. 2008;20(4):437–55.
18. Foster S, Giles-Corti B. The built environment, neighborhood crime and
constrained physical activity: an exploration of inconsistent research
findings. Prev Med. 2008;47(3):241–51.
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 11 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
19. Foster S, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M. Creating safe walkable streetscapes: Does
house design and upkeep discourage incivilities in suburban neighbourhoods?
J Environ Psychol. 2011;31:79–88.
20. Wood L, Martin K, Christian H, Nathan A, Lauritsen C, Houghton S, et al. The
pet factor-companion animals as a conduit for getting to know people,
friendship formation and social support. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0122085.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122085.
21. Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Pikora T. Physical activity behavior of dog
owners: development and reliability of the dogs and physical activity
(DAPA) tool. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(Supp1):73–89.
22. Milton K, Clemes S, Bull F. Can a single question provide an accurate measure
of physical activity? Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(1):44–8.
23. Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Cutt H, Pikora TJ, Bull FC, Knuiman M, et al.
Development of a reliable measure of walking within and outside the local
neighborhood: RESIDE’s neighborhood physical activity questionnaire. Prev
Med. 2006;42:455–9.
24. Riger S, Lavrakas PJ. Community ties: patterns of attachment and social
interaction in urban neighborhoods. Am J Community Psychol. 1981;9(1):55–66.
25. Coulton CJ, Korbin JE, Su M. Measuring neighborhood context for young
children in an urban area. Am J Community Psychol. 1996;24(1):5–32.
26. Chavis DM, Wandersman A. Sense of community in the urban environment:
a catalyst for participation and community development. Am J Community
Psychol. 1990;18(1):55–81.
27. Perkins DD, Meeks JW, Taylor RB. The physical environment of street blocks
and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and
measurement. J Environ Psychol. 1992;12(1):21–34.
28. Macintyre S, CMaciver S, Soomans A. Area, class and health: should we be
focusing on places or people? J Soc Policy. 1993;22:213–34.
29. Foster S, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M. Neighbourhood design and fear of
crime: a social-ecological examination of the correlates of residents’fear
in new suburban housing developments. Health Place. 2010;16:1156–65.
30. Duncan M, Mummery K. Psychosocial and environmental factors associated
with physical activity among city dwellers in regional Queensland. Prev Med.
2005;40:363–72.
31. Zubrick S, Wood L, Villanueva K, Wood G, Giles-Corti B, Christian H. Nothing
but fear itself: parental fear as a determinant impacting on child physical
activity and independent mobility. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion
Foundation; 2010.
32. Jacobs J. The death and life of great American Cities, Readings in planning
theory. Fourthth ed. London: Jonathon Cape; 1962.
33. Westgarth C, Christley R, Christian H. How might we increase physical
activity through dog walking?: a comprehensive review of dog walking
correlates. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:83.
34. Suminski RR, Poston WSC, Petosa RL, Stevens E, Katzenmoyer LM. Features
of the neighborhood environment and walking by US adults. Am J Prev
Med. 2005;28(2):149–55.
35. Marshall M. Pets and social capital report. Nashville: WALTHAM® (a division
of Mars Inc.); 2014.
36. Lee H-S, Shepley M, Huang C-S. Evaluation of off-leash dog parks in Texas
and Florida: A study of use patterns, user satisfaction, and perception.
Landscape Urban Plan. 2009;92(3):314–24.
37. Hoad V, Somerford P, Katzenellenbogen J. The burden of disease and injury
attributed to preventable risks to health in Western Australia, 2006. Western
Australia: Department of Health; 2010.
• We accept pre-submission inquiries
• Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
• We provide round the clock customer support
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
• Maximum visibility for your research
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and we will help you at every step:
Christian et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:1010 Page 12 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Content uploaded by Sandra Mccune
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandra Mccune on Oct 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
