Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Liverpool Law Review
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Liverpool Law Review (2024) 45:471–494
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-024-09369-7
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment
Approach toRegulating Companion Animals inRental
Housing Across theWorld
DeborahRook1 · BrindaIndiaJegatheesan2
Accepted: 8 May 2024 / Published online: 1 June 2024
© The Author(s) 2024, corrected publication of the year 2024
Abstract
The covid-19 pandemic, and in particular, the rise in pet ownership, the greater
focus on home-life during lockdowns and the normalisation of hybrid-working
conditions post-pandemic, has shed light on an under-researched area of law that
affects millions of people across the world: the use of ‘no pet’ covenants in pri-
vate rental housing. This article identifies the prevalence of ‘no pet’ covenants as a
socio-legal problem that is of global significance. It assesses the legal regulation of
pets in private rental housing through a Harm Assessment approach that has global
application. A Harm Assessment approach balances harms to various stakeholders
in both the use and restriction of ‘no pet’ covenants. In countries that have no legal
regulation of pets in housing it can be used to assess the need for legislation. This
approach considers the character, magnitude and likelihood of the harm, something
which has had little consideration to date. Drawing, by analogy, on the work of Fein-
berg and his analysis of harm within the context of the legitimacy of state interfer-
ence with individual liberty, this article adapts his theory of harm to assess the need
for legal regulation of pets in rental housing. The legitimacy of a Harm Assessment
approach is supported by the existing literature on ‘no pet’ covenants, from which
the dominant theme of harm emerges. Identifying and weighting the types of harm
to be balanced varies depending on cultural, religious and geographic considerations
and further research is needed to better understand the harms in different countries.
Keywords ‘No pet’ covenants· Companion animals· Rental housing· Pets and
housing· Housing law· Human-companion animal relationship
* Deborah Rook
debbie.rook@northumbria.ac.uk
1 Northumbria Law School, Northumbria University, NewcastleuponTyne, UK
2 Educational Psychology andAnthrozoology, University ofWashington, College ofEducation,
Seattle, WA, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
472
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
Introduction
The question of whether companion animals can lawfully be kept in rental housing
is of growing interest in housing law and policy across the world. The covid-19 pan-
demic has played a role in the heightened interest in the legal regulation of keeping
pets in rental housing. Lockdowns led to increased pet ownership (PFMA 2021),
emphasised the importance of making a space a home and fuelled a legacy of hybrid
working conditions which is more compatible with pet ownership. During the pan-
demic, countries and cities across the world went into lockdown and most people
spent uncharacteristically long periods of time living in one confined space. Home
life became all-encompassing emphasising the importance of a space being a home
and not just a place in which to live. People wanted to make that space their own
and not to be hindered by undue restrictions. Home is the place where family resides
and many people, in different parts of the world, now perceive their companion
animals as family members, for example, in Australia (Power 2008), India (AWBI
2015), Israel (Shir-Vertesh 2012), Japan (Hamano 2013), the United Kingdom (UK)
(Fox 2004) and the United States of America (USA) (Irvine and Cilia 2017). The
strong bond that exists between many tenants and their companion animal means
that restrictions on keeping pets negatively impinges on a tenant’s sense of home.
In England in 2022 this contributed to an unexpected last-minute addition to the
Government’s White paper ‘A Fairer Private Rented Sector’, leading to the Renters
Reform Bill 2023–24 which, if passed into law, will give tenants in the private rental
sector a right to request to keep a pet and landlords will not be able to unreasonably
refuse permission. These proposals on allowing pets in private rental housing are
included in the chapter in the white paper on ‘A Positive Renting Experience’ which
aims to “help tenants truly feel like their house is their home” (DLUHC 2022). Hav-
ing a space that allows tenants to keep their family intact, including their companion
animals, affects their perception of that space as their home.
A ‘no pet’ covenant is a leasehold covenant (or policy incorporated into a ten-
ancy agreement) that prohibits or restricts a tenant from keeping companion ani-
mals in their rental housing accommodation.1 Some covenants exist as blanket bans
and exclude all companion animals from the property, others exclude certain species
commonly cats and dogs, and others are qualified covenants that permit pets only
with the landlord’s prior consent. People keep many different species as companion
animals but in many countries, the two most popular animals are dogs and cats. In
the context of ‘no pet’ covenants different issues arise depending on whether a ten-
ant is keeping a dog or a hamster. This article focuses on dogs and cats because
these are the two most popular pet species, and they are most likely to face opposi-
tion from landlords and neighbouring tenants (Battersea 2018). When considering
pets and housing there are important distinctions to keep in mind, firstly, the type
of property (whether it is a house let as a whole building or an apartment which has
1 The term companion animal better reflects the role of the animals in people’s lives. However, housing
law and policy primarily uses the term ‘pet’. Therefore, the terms ‘companion animal’ and ‘pet’ are used
interchangeably throughout this article.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
473
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
common parts such as hallways and stairs) and secondly, the category of landlord
(whether the landlord is a public authority providing social housing or a private indi-
vidual or company usually renting property as a financial investment). Social hous-
ing is more likely to be pet friendly (USDHUD 2020; Cats Protection 2019). There
are different responsibilities and considerations for social housing landlords, such as
the mental well-being of their tenants, compared to private landlords who are more
likely to be primarily concerned with protecting the financial value of their property.
Although we sometimes refer to social housing when giving examples from across
the world of how ‘no pet’ policies affect tenants, this article will primarily focus on
private rental housing.
The paucity of academic literature on ‘no pet’ covenants prior to the covid-19
pandemic highlights the lack of interest in the subject at that time in academic
and political circles. This disinterest was surprising given the reach and signifi-
cance of ‘no pet’ covenants as a topic that is both international and multi-discipli-
nary. Restrictions on pets and housing is a global phenomenon (Jegatheesan etal.
2024) and affects millions of people. The literature on the topic demonstrates its
multi-disciplinary nature with publications from academics in the fields of health
sciences, human geography, psychology and, more recently, law (Carlisle-Frank
et al. 2005; Fox and Ray 2019; Graham et al. 2018; Power 2017; Rook 2018;
Stone etal. 2021). The principal theme to emerge from the pre-pandemic liter-
ature is the harm caused to pet-owning tenants. This research, which primarily
focused on the tenant experience, identifies the type of harm pet-owning tenants
face, for example, rental insecurity and poor-quality housing (Power 2017; Gra-
ham etal. 2018). In understanding the effect of ‘no pet’ covenants and the need
for legal regulation in a post-pandemic society, the theme of harm remains sig-
nificant. In recent years there has been an effort to address the knowledge gap
on the landlord’s experience with research funded by organisations such as the
Society for Companion Animal Studies in the UK and the Michelson Foundation
in the USA. This research has sought to understand why landlords and property
managers use ‘no pet’ covenants and how any concerns about restrictions on their
use can be addressed. Once again, harm emerges as a significant theme with land-
lords citing the risk of harm as a justification for prohibiting pets (Assis etal.
20232; Barker 20223). Drawing on the theme of harm from the literature review,
this article advocates the use of a Harm Assessment approach in assessing the
need for legislation to regulate the use of ‘no pet’ covenants in private rental
housing. Making use of Feinberg’s theory of harm and applying it, by analogy,
to the legal regulation of ‘no pet’ covenants in housing law, this article considers
the character and magnitude of harm, the probability of harm occurring and the
2 Assis, Luciana S., Sandra McCune and Daniel S. Mills. 2023. Understanding landlord decisions in
relation to pet friendly renting in order to minimise concerns. In: 32nd International Society for Anthro-
zoology Conference: ‘Anthrozoology: The Spectrum of Human-Animal Interactions and Relationships’.
3 Barker, Ross. 2022. Understanding property managers: The benefits and risks of allowing pets in rental
units in the US and UK. Society for Companion Animal Studies Annual online conference: ‘Pet-Friendly
Housing: How can we keep people and pets together?’. 18 September 2022.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
474
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
relative importance of competing harms within the context of ‘no pet’ covenants.
This is something that has been afforded little consideration to date.
There is very little research on ‘no pet’ covenants that takes a global perspec-
tive. The book chapter ‘Pets and Housing: A One health/One Welfare Issue’, to
which the authors contributed, is a first in this respect (Jegatheesan etal. 2024).
This article builds on that global perspective to examine ‘no pet’ covenants as a
socio-legal problem. Using a global perspective identifies three legal approaches
to pets and housing: firstly, those countries with no legal regulation, where con-
tractual freedom prevails and it is up to the parties to negotiate the question of
pets; secondly, those countries with some legal regulation to permit the keeping
of pets but with notable conditions or restrictions imposed, for example, on the
size or number of animals that can be kept; thirdly, those countries whose laws
protect the right of tenants to keep pets in rental housing with few or no restric-
tions. Each of these approaches comes with its own problems as will be discussed
in later sections but the focus of this article is on those countries that currently
have no legal regulation of pets in housing. For those countries this article offers
a theoretical framework to assess whether legislation is needed to regulate pets
in housing. This is independent of the legal processes of individual countries
because it is assessing the need for legal regulation, thereafter individual coun-
tries can use their own processes for enacting appropriate laws if required. There
is a difficulty in applying this theoretical approach internationally, but it rests on
cultural, religious and geographic differences. Societal perceptions of pets espe-
cially dogs can vary significantly across countries, for example, in Malaysia dogs
are generally seen as impure by the large Muslim population and people may
need to perform a purification ritual if they come into contact with dogs. Geog-
raphy also plays a role, for example, the dense urban environments characterised
by high population density in Asian countries like Japan are very different to the
sprawled, lower population density of many countries in the West (Koohsari etal.
2021). Therefore, when applying the Harm Assessment approach, the act of iden-
tifying harm and allocating its importance in the balance may vary between coun-
tries depending on cultural, religious and geographic considerations.
The article will first identify the use of ‘no pet’ covenants as a global socio-
legal problem by examining the situation in several countries. This demonstrates
the three legal approaches to regulating pets and housing. The approaches and the
problems they encounter will be examined. The article then reviews the existing
literature on ‘no pet’ covenants and identifies the significant knowledge gap, dem-
onstrating both the value of this article and the need for further research. Harm
emerges as a key theme from the literature review and drawing on this theme,
a Harm Assessment framework is advocated to assist countries in assessing the
need for legislation where none currently exists. It is suggested that examining
the use of ‘no pet’ covenants through the lens of harm supports a reconceptual-
ization of ‘no pet’ covenants from ‘controllers of risk’ to ‘contributors of harm’.
This encourages landlords, agents, policy makers and legislators to focus on the
potential harmful effects of ‘no pet’ covenants and adopt alternative strategies to
address landlords’ concerns about allowing pets in rental housing.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
475
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
A Global Phenomenon
The authors are part of an International Steering Group on pets and housing whose
members represent Africa, Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore,
South America, South Korea, the UK and the USA demonstrating the global signifi-
cance of pets in rental housing. There are a range of legal approaches across these
countries with three broad categories identified: no legal regulation; legal regulation
with notable conditions or restrictions and legal regulation with no, or few, restric-
tions. In some countries, such as England (until the English Renters Reform Bill
2023–24 becomes law) and parts of countries such as the USA, Canada and Aus-
tralia, housing law is silent on the issue of pets so the decision as to whether a tenant
can keep a companion animal rests with the landlord and tenant. Underpinning this
approach are the legal principles of personal autonomy and freedom of contract; the
personal autonomy of landowners to control the use of their land and the freedom
of contract of the parties to negotiate a lease on terms acceptable to both. However,
this laissez-faire approach needs to be set against the backdrop of housing shortages
and the growth of the private rental sector. In consequence of the changing hous-
ing sector in countries such as England, Australia and Canada (Rook 2018; Power
2017; Graham et al 2018 respectively), the contractual freedom of tenants in the
private rental housing market is in most part illusory; the increased number of pri-
vate tenants seeking scarce housing means tenants have little bargaining strength in
negotiations about pets. As a result, the landlord can dictate the terms of the lease,
readily able to find another tenant if a prospective or current tenant wants to keep
a pet. Since private landlords predominantly view pets as a property risk, ‘no pet’
covenants are extensively used in practice. Such views arise and perpetuate due to
cultural conceptions of dogs, as unhygienic, disruptive and unruly (Serpell 1996;
Jegatheesan 2019, 20104). This cultural framing of pets through notions of risk, spe-
cifically as a risk to property and investment dominates the debate about the use of
‘no pet’ covenants in many countries including the USA (Carlisle-Frank etal. 2005),
England (Rook 2018) and Australia (Power 2017). These negative cultural concep-
tions of dogs can be intensified by religion. In Malaysia, Islam is the dominant reli-
gion with 63.5% of Malaysians professing the Islamic faith in 2020 (Statista 2022).
Cultural and religious issues come into focus when renting a house or an apartment
with cats or dogs in Malaysia. If the owner of the property is of the Muslim faith, it is
likely they will be supportive of allowing cats as they are positively viewed in Islam.
This contrasts with dogs which are viewed as ‘unclean’ and therefore families with
dogs can face significant challenges in acquiring a rental home and may be forced to
relinquish their companion animal. Sometimes religious influences can be positive,
such as in Hinduism, but cultural perceptions of dogs can override these positive
religious influences, for example, in India. India has a Hindu majority (nearly 80%
of the population being of the Hindu faith) and dogs are revered as sacred animals
that guard the doors of heaven. In Hinduism, dogs are believed to be a manifestation
4 Jegatheesan, Brinda (Keynote Speaker, 2010). The Importance of Culture in Human-Animal Interac-
tions. International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ)Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
476
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
of Kal Bhairava, also known as the Hindu God Lord Shiva, who is considered as
the Supreme Being (Washburn Hopkins 1894, Kaminska-Jones 2020). In Madurai,
a major city that is seen as the religious and cultural capital in the southern state
of Tamil Nadu, there are hundreds of Kal Bairav temples and standing close to the
deity is a statue of his companion which is a dog. It is common to see Hindus pray
at the temples prior to beginning their daily routine. However, despite this religious
reverence towards dogs, attitudes towards them can be very negative, especially due
to the large population of free-roaming dogs in India being seen as dirty, aggressive
and associated with spreading rabies (Thiagarajan 2020; Corfmat etal 2023). It has
been observed that, “This aversion towards dogs is a socio-cultural phenomenon
that has very deep roots, going back to at least three thousand years” (Majumder
etal. 2014 at p.877).
Malaysia and Singapore are examples of countries where there is some legal
regulation of pets in rental housing but with notable conditions or restrictions that
limit the keeping of pets. In Malaysia there are no national laws on pets in housing
but there are local laws that restrict or even prohibit the keeping of pets in certain
types of property. Prior to 2015, pets were not allowed in stratified homes such as
condominiums and apartments. This was due to the Deed of Mutual Covenants, a
guideline governing stratified homes in Malaysia. However, the situation changed
in 2015 following the implementation of By-Law 14 in the Strata Management
(Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015. This now regulates the keep-
ing of pets in strata scheme developments and provides that residents are allowed
to keep pets provided that the animals do not cause an annoyance or nuisance to
other proprietors, nor cause a danger to their health or safety. However, By-Law 14
specifically states that the keeping of pets must not contravene any relevant state or
local law. Under the Strata Management Act 2013, the local authority has power to
pass regulations concerning the keeping of pets in strata buildings. Therefore local
laws may restrict the type or breed of animal allowed or make other restrictions,
for example, Kuala Lumpur City hall only allows nine species of small dog breeds
(the Bichon Frise, Chihuahua, Japanese Chin, Maltese, Minature Pinscher, Papilon,
Pekingese, Pomeranian and Poodle) to be kept in strata scheme developments and
further require that the dog must be licensed and must be confined to the proprietor’s
unit and not allowed to roam freely. The Subang Jaya Municipal Council is more
restrictive and prohibits the keeping of any dogs in high-rise strata buildings (Daily
Express Property 2020). In this way, it is local authority laws that determine whether
pets can be kept in condominiums and apartments.
In Singapore, 80% of Singaporean residents live in Housing and Development
Board (HDB) flats of which about 90% own their home (HDB 2022). Under the
Housing and Development Board Animals Rules 1989, HDB residents are only
allowed to keep one dog of an approved breed per flat failing which there is a fine of
up to SGD four thousand (HDB 2023). A list of 62 approved pure-bred dog breeds
are permitted in HDB flats and as long as the dog is an approved breed, and has
been licensed by the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS), there is no need for the
dog owner to obtain consent from the HDB to keep the dog. Detailed specifications
dictate the size of the dog. It must be a maximum height of 40cm (at their shoul-
ders) and have a weight of 10kg or below. Since 2012, Project Adore (ADOption
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
477
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
and REhoming of dogs), led by the AVS, has allowed HDB residents to adopt a
local, medium-sized mixed breed dog (known as a Singapore Special) from one
of five participating dog shelters (AVS n.d.). Dogs in this program can be slightly
larger than the 62 approved pure-bred breeds (a maximum shoulder height of up to
55cm with no weight limit). There are further restrictions in that the dog must be at
least 6months old, sterilized, and have been through basic obedience training by an
AVS–accredited trainer. The purpose of Project ADORE is to reduce the number of
stray dogs living on the streets by relaxing restrictive pet polices in housing and per-
mitting residents of HDB flats to live with a Singapore Special dog. Cats have been
banned from living in HDB flats for 34years because they were seen as difficult to
contain within a flat and when outside tend to roam freely, defecate in public areas
and make wailing sounds causing a nuisance to neighbours. However, in December
2023 the Government announced a proposal to amend the law to lift the ban on cats
(Ang 2023). If the proposal becomes law each household will be permitted to keep
up to two cats which will need to be microchipped and licensed as part of a drive
to improve responsible cat ownership. The proposed law is a significant change for
Singapore and has instigated calls for similar changes in Hong Kong (Wu 2023).
It is arguable that imposing some conditions and restrictions on the keeping of
pets in rental housing helps ensure the welfare needs of the animal are met. In Sin-
gapore the proposed new law to permit cats in HDB flats requires cat owners to
take measures to ensure their home is a safe environment for a cat to reside. For
example, owners will need to install window grilles or mesh to prevent cats from
falling from a height (Ang 2023). If laws permit the keeping of any pet in any rental
housing, there may be an increased risk of animal welfare concerns especially if the
particular housing is not suitable for certain animals. For example, is a small flat
on the top floor of a high-rise block of flats in a bustling city a suitable home for a
large, energetic dog like a husky or a Doberman? The restrictions we find in coun-
tries like Malaysia and Singapore on the size and number of dogs that can be kept in
strata buildings prevent this, but do they go too far and place too onerous a burden
on pet owners? Such restrictions may require pet owners, who need to move into
strata rental housing, to relinquish a well-behaved, cherished companion dog simply
because of its large size.
Some countries (or states) have enacted housing legislation to protect the
right of tenants to keep pets in private rental housing with few or no restrictions.
Examples include France (Article 10 of the Law of 9 July 1970) and Ontario in
Canada (s.14, Residential Tenancies Act 2006) and more recently, in 2020, Vic-
toria in Australia (s. 71A-71E, Residential Tenancies Act 1997). In seeking to
balance the interests of landlords, pet-owning tenants and neighbouring tenants
the legislation includes some restrictions, for example, tenants cannot keep dan-
gerous breeds of animals, but otherwise are generally free to choose the breed,
size and number of cats and dogs that live with them. India has gone one step
further by providing Constitutional protection for living with pets. The funda-
mental duties of the Constitution of India make it a duty of every Indian citizen
to respect and have compassion for all life forms (section51(A)(g)). Not allow-
ing pets in an apartment complex or housing society is seen as a direct violation
of the Constitution. This applies irrespective of whether the pet owner is renting
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
478
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
from a public or private landlord and whether they live in a house or an apart-
ment complex. The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), which comes under
the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change of the Government of
India, has implemented guidelines for the Residents’ Welfare Associations and
Apartment Owners Associations stating that they cannot ban pets, nor restrict
the size or the number of companion animals in a property. The guidelines state:
“in trying to ‘ban’ pets, or limit their number, residents’ welfare associations &
apartment owners associations interfere with a fundamental freedom guaran-
teed to the citizens of India, i.e., the freedom to choose the life they wish to live,
which includes facets such as living with or without companion animals” (AWBI
2015 at p.4). India has even passed laws to protect the right of stray dogs to be
recognised as community-owned animals and given some protection as part of a
housing society (Deshpande 2023). India is home to an estimated 15 million stray
dogs (also known as native/indigenous dogs although some are abandoned pets),
probably the largest population of stray dogs in the world, and they are linked to
the spread of rabies in the country (Thiagarajan 2020). According to the World
Health Organisation, India accounts for 36% of the world’s rabies deaths (WHO,
Rabies in Indian.d.). There are also concerns about stray dogs attacking people,
especially children (Mogul and Farooqui 2023). This contributes to the complex
relationship people in India have with dogs—a combination of fear and suspicion
together with religious reverence and a deep-rooted respect for nature and ani-
mals. In the recent Bombay High Court case of Paromita Puthran vs Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2023) (Writ Petition No. 702), a resident of a
cooperative housing society was successful in her petition against the manage-
ment for preventing her from feeding eighteen stray dogs that resided in the ter-
ritory. The court referred to a new law (the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023)
which aims to control India’s stray dog problem without resort to cruelty. As part
of this, Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners Associations
must provide feeding spots for territorial stray dogs. The judges observed that
“You have nurtured the dogs. They are now part of your housing society”. India’s
laws are very progressive in the protection of pet dogs to reside with their owners
and even the protection of stray dogs to be cared for by residents within housing
premises.
However, India demonstrates how legislation alone is not sufficient to protect
pets in rental housing because cultural norms and societal perceptions may lead
to the inadequate enforcement of those laws. In India, attitudes towards pet dogs
can be harsh caused by intolerance and fear exacerbated by the country’s stray
dog problem. Therefore, tenants with dogs may face difficulty finding and retain-
ing rental housing. This clash between law and culture highlights the need for
better understanding about the nature of the human-companion animal relation-
ship and effective communication of this to landlords, policy makers, legislators
and enforcement agencies.
Having taken a global perspective to identify the prevalence of ‘no pet’ cov-
enants as a socio-legal problem and illustrate the different legal approaches to
the keeping of pet cats and dogs in private rental housing, the next section will
review the existing literature to identify both themes and gaps in the literature.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
479
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
Themes fromtheExisting Literature
The existing literature on pets and housing is international and multi-disciplinary
but there are very few articles published in peer reviewed academic journals from
a socio-legal perspective demonstrating the significant knowledge gap in the legal
literature. The majority of the articles focus on the experience of pet-owning tenants
in the USA, Canada and Australia exploring how pets can shape ‘housing pathways’
(Stone etal. 2021) and the difficulties tenants face in finding rental housing that will
allow them to live with their companion animals (Palluzi 2013; Power 2017; Gra-
ham etal 2018; Graham and Rock 2018; O’Reilly-Jones 2019). The main themes to
emerge from empirical research on the experience of pet-owning tenants in Australia
and Canada are Rental Insecurity, Low Availability and Poor Quality of rental hous-
ing advertised as pet-friendly (Power 2017; Graham etal 2018). Pet-owning tenants
raised concerns about the low availability of pet-friendly rental housing leading to a
need to compromise on quality, cleanliness, location or cost of housing by accept-
ing sub-standard property in undesirable or unsafe areas. The lack of pet-friendly
housing led some tenants to keep pets in breach of a ‘no pet’ covenant and thereby
risk eviction (Power 2017). Graham etal (2018) identified a “cycle of rental inse-
curity” endured by dog owners in Canada during their rental journey of searching
for, settling in and staying put in pet-friendly rental housing (2018 p. 4). In addition
to feeling powerless in negotiations with the landlord and making compromises in
the quality and location of their housing, tenants complained of having no option
but to pay non-refundable pet fees such as pet rent (Graham etal 2018). Pet charges
can disproportionately harm those who are economically and socially disadvantaged
(Applebaum etal 2021).
Most academic research on ‘no pet’ covenants focus on the experience of tenants,
so Carlisle-Frank etal’s (2005) study in the USA is significant because it explores
the position of landlords and their reasons for seeing companion animals as undesir-
able occupants. Two-thirds of the respondents cited property damage as a concern
with half citing noise nuisance. These concerns did not necessarily arise from direct
experience of troublesome pets since 63% of the respondents had never allowed
pets in their property (2005 p.69). More recently, research in the UK found similar
landlord concerns about property damage (Assis etal. 20235). That landlords gener-
ally frame pets as a risk is significant in understanding the prevalence of ‘no pet’
covenants in the private sector. This view of pets as a risk to property arises from,
and is perpetuated by, cultural conceptions of pets, especially dogs, as polluting and
disruptive (Serpell 1996). The advantages landlords receive from adopting positive
pet policies, for example, a greater number of applicants and a reduced turnover of
tenants (Carlisle-Frank etal. 2005; Palluzi 2013; Graham et al 2018) appear to be
outweighed for most landlords by this conception of pets as a risk.
5 Assis, Luciana S., Sandra McCune and Daniel S. Mills. 2023. Understanding landlord decisions in
relation to pet friendly renting in order to minimise concerns. In: 32nd International Society for Anthro-
zoology Conference: ‘Anthrozoology: The Spectrum of Human-Animal Interactions and Relationships’.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
480
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
Jegatheesan etal (2024) adopts a One Health/One Welfare framework to pets and
housing. This approach acknowledges the interdependence of human and compan-
ion animal health in a shared home environment whilst also appreciating the social
interconnectedness of human well-being and the welfare of companion animals. It
recognises the health and social benefits of pet ownership and how the opportunity
to experience these benefits, as well as the housing opportunities themselves, are
shaped by ‘no pet’ covenants and policies.
The legal literature is very sparse with only three articles examining the law spe-
cific to the USA and Canada (Huss 2005; Campbell 2009; Palluzi 2013) and two
considering the law in England (Rook 2018; Fox and Ray 2019). The English arti-
cles focus on the nature of the human-companion animal relationship and take a
human rights approach that advocates the relationship comes within ‘private life and
family’ under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Fox and Ray
(2019) focus on residential and nursing homes for older people in the UK building
on earlier research in the field of psychology (McNicholas 2007).
The themes that emerge from a review of the existing literature mostly fall within
an overarching theme of harm. From the perspective of the tenant, harms from the
extensive use of ‘no pet’ covenants arise from a forced separation from their com-
panion animal, rental insecurity, powerlessness, feelings of discrimination and a
lack of choice due to the poor availability of pet-friendly housing. These harms can
ultimately have a detrimental effect on a tenant’s mental and physical health. From
the perspective of a private landlord, harm from allowing tenants to live with their
companion dogs and/or cats arises from the potential risk of damage to the property,
or a risk of nuisance claims from neighbours. The finding that harm is the dominant
theme in the existing literature supports the use of a Harm Assessment approach to
assess the need for the legal regulation of ‘no pet’ covenants and this will be exam-
ined in the next section.
A Harm Assessment Approach
Using ‘harm’ as a means to justify legislative changes is not new. John Stuart Mill’s
‘harm principle’ from 1859 continues to influence questions of legitimate state inter-
ference with a person’s liberty. In ‘On Liberty’, Mill stated that:
“[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to oth-
ers.” (Mill 1859 at p.223).
Can the harm principle be used to justify state interference with a landowner’s
property rights? Laws that restrict or prohibit the use of ‘no pet’ covenants interfere
with the landowner’s personal autonomy to control the use of their own land. The
problem with applying the harm principle to the legal regulation of pets in rental
housing is that both tenants and landlords can claim harm; pet-owning tenants suf-
fer harm from the extensive use of ‘no pet’ covenants while private landlords may
be harmed by prohibiting or restricting the use of ‘no pet’ covenants. The work of
Feinberg (1987) and his in-depth analysis of harm within the context of criminal law
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
481
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
provides guiding principles which can be applied by analogy here to address this
problem in housing law.
Feinberg’s Theory ofHarm
Feinberg (1987) identifies harm to others as a morally relevant reason for enacting
criminal law. As a proponent of Liberalism and antipaternalism, Feinberg is keen
to restrict liberty-limiting (or coercion-legitimizing) principles to those circum-
stances where it can be justified by the need to prevent harm to others. However, he
acknowledges that the word harm is “both vague and ambiguous” (1987 at p. 31).
To better understand a harmed condition, he identifies three senses of harm: the first
sense is a derivative or extended sense in which any kind of thing can be harmed
such as harm caused to property by smashing a window; the second sense is harm
that is “conceived as the thwarting, setting back, or defeating of an interest” (1987
at p.33). For this purpose, he defines interests as all those things in which a person
has a stake and which are “distinguishable components of a person’s well-being”
(1987 at p.34). Finally, Feinberg identifies a third sense of harm which refers to the
way in which one person can harm another by treating them unjustly and thereby
wronging them. Feinberg recognised that there are some situations where harm is
unavoidable and for these situations, he articulated the need for the priority ranking
of conflicting interests. He uses this concept of priority ranking to identify wrongs
(his third sense of harm),
“Legal wrongs then will be invasions of interests which violate established pri-
ority rankings” (1987 at p.35).
In this way any invasion of the interests of another that are justified by the prior-
ity rules are not legal wrongs even though a person may suffer a setback of their
interest. According to Feinberg, only wrongful harms can justify interference by the
state. If a country or state enacts legislation that prohibits or significantly restricts
the use of ‘no pet’ covenants in rental housing, it interferes with the right of a pri-
vate landlord to control the use of their own property and needs to be justified.
Although Feinberg’s work is in criminal law, his in-depth understanding of harm
provides guidance on how a Harm Assessment approach can be used to examine
pets and housing within housing law.
In analysing harm, Feinberg adopts a balancing strategy and devises “mediat-
ing maxims” and supplemental criteria to help ensure the harm principle is sensibly
mediated in practice (1987 at p.187). He advocates the use of the following criteria:
the magnitude of the harm committed; the probability of the harm occurring; the
relative importance of the harm; and finally, the aggregative nature of the harm. The
following section will examine each of Feinberg’s criteria in turn and demonstrate
how they can be employed within a Harm Assessment approach to assess the need
for legislation to regulate the use of ‘no pet’ covenants in private rental housing.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
482
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
(i) The magnitude of the harm.
Feinberg takes the magnitude of harm into account in his balancing strategy. The
greater the harm to others, the greater the justification for liberty-limiting principles
of law. In the context of ‘no pet’ covenants, the magnitude of the harm caused to
pet-owning tenants by the use of blanket bans on pets is a key theme to arise from
the literature. Only by understanding the character of the human-companion animal
relationship and the strength of the bond, can the full impact of ‘no pet’ covenants
on tenants and companion animals be appreciated. The character of the human-
companion animal relationship as a close, socially supportive bond that extends kin-
ship ties means that pet-owning tenants suffer serious harm when they are forced to
rehome their companion animals due to ‘no pet’ covenants.
There is extensive research from numerous countries including the UK (Serpell
1996; Fox 2004; Charles and Davies 2008), Australia (Power 2008), Israel (Shir-
Vertesh 2012), Japan (Hamano 2013) and the USA (Cain 1985; Irvine and Cilia
2017), to show that many pet owners consider their companion animals as family
members. A recent international survey found that 95% of pet owners globally con-
sider their pet as a family member (HABRI 2022). The Animal Welfare Board of
India recognises pets as family “akin to a perennial toddler” (AWBI 2015). Peo-
ple anthropomorphise companion animals by endowing them with human qualities
(Fox 2004) and use vocabulary from human–human social relationships such as
‘surrogate child’ (Sanders 1990) and ‘eternal child’ (Hamano 2013). The major-
ity of participants in Power’s study of new dog owners in Australia described their
dogs as ‘children’ but Power argues this is not “naive anthropomorphism” but func-
tioned to “emphasise the intensive nature of the relationship” (2008 at p. 541). If
social trends show the diversity of family to have crossed the species boundary to
incorporate companion animals, what are the implications for the use of ‘no pet’
covenants in rental housing? Currently, housing policy in most countries does not
consider companion animals as valued members of a household. Over the years the
concept of family has expanded, for example, to include stepchildren, sperm donors
and same-sex partners rather than creating a new vocabulary for these relationships
(Silva and Smart 1999). This demonstrates the elasticity of the concept of family to
reflect changes in societal attitudes to relationships. There is a growing recognition
in political and legal circles of the significance of pets as family. For example, in
England this instigated the Pet Abduction Act 2024 which creates new offences of
dog and cat abduction with imprisonment of up to five years if convicted on indict-
ment. In supporting the new law, the Government recognised family pets as “treas-
ured members of the family” and acknowledged that losing a pet through theft was
“a deeply traumatic experience” (Defra 2024). Research on pet loss and bereave-
ment found that “One of the most agonizing situations is the forced relinquishment
of a valued pet” (Walsh 2009) since grief can be intensified with feelings of guilt.
Pet owners are known to take risks to their own safety to avoid a forced separation
from their pet in instances of domestic violence, homelessness and natural disaster
(Montgomery etal. 2024). That many owners self-identify their pets as family mem-
bers demonstrates their perception of the character and significance of the human-
companion animal relationship.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
483
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
Numerous studies demonstrate the socially supportive nature of the human-com-
panion animal bond (Harker etal. 2000; Bonas et al. 2000). These studies demon-
strate how companion animals fulfil a number of Weiss’ categories of relational pro-
vision: attachment, nurturance, reassurance of worth; reliable alliance, which ensure
a person has an adequate social life and sense of well-being (Weiss 1974). Weiss
advocated that people need a range of different social relationships for their well-
being, and companion animals can contribute to this variety. Social support from
dogs can reduce the risk of long-standing mental illness for owners (Liu etal. 2019).
Ratschen etal (2020) investigated links between pets and mental health during the
first covid-19 lockdown in the UK. Their findings show that pet ownership mitigated
some of the detrimental psychological effects of lockdown, in particular, alleviat-
ing loneliness. In contrast to this body of research, Herzog observes that those stud-
ies in which pet owners have been found to be more likely to have specified health
problems, have been little publicised thereby over-inflating the actual significance
of what he calls “the pet effect” which is at best inconclusive (Herzog 2011). How-
ever, it is the relationship people have with their pet that is significant to any health
benefits. Mere pet ownership alone is not sufficient to test the validity of the claim
that pets bring health benefits to their owners; the strength of the bond between the
owner and the companion animal, as perceived by the owner, also needs to play into
the equation. Hutton argues that it is the owner’s perception of support that matters,
“a person’s belief in their animal’s supportive presence may be sufficient to “buffer”
negative life challenges” (2015 at p.211).
Other studies have focused on the support companion animals give to particularly
vulnerable groups such as the elderly (Enders-Slegers 2000; Reniers et al 2022),
women suffering domestic abuse (Flynn 2000; Fitzgerald 2007), people living with
HIV (Hutton 2015) and homeless people (Irvine 2013a; Cleary etal 2021; Jegathee-
san 20226). Irvine’s study of homeless pet owners in the USA found that companion
animals are constructed as respected significant others who bestow a sense of self-
worth, provide a buffer against isolation and in some instances become redemptive
figures who keep their owners alive or turn their lives around (Irvine 2013a, 2013b).
Being forced to rehome a companion animal and lose this supportive relationship
can have a detrimental effect on a tenant’s mental health. Fox and Ray found that
some older people experienced a “bereavement” akin to the loss of a family member
when forced to relinquish their companion animal following a move to a care home
that prohibited pets (Fox and Ray 2019 at p.211).
Indicative of this close relationship some legislative reforms on pets and hous-
ing have acknowledged the joy that pet ownership can bring to tenants. For exam-
ple, the white paper in England states, “Pets can bring a huge amount of joy”
(DLUHC 2022 at 6.2). In 2018 the government in New Zealand announced that
the main public housing landlord, now called Kāinga Ora, would become pet
6 Jegatheesan, Brinda. 2022. Uprooted: The Significance of Human-Animal Relationships in Transform-
ing Trauma during Forced Displacement. Invited Speaker, My Dog is my Home Conference: Shelter and
housing for families and children experiencing homelessness with companion animals, March 2022.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
484
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
friendly and relied on the benefits of pet ownership, especially bringing joy, to
justify this change in policy (Housing New Zealand 2018). This rationale of joy
emerges from a greater understanding of the nature of the human-companion ani-
mal relationship as a socially significant relationship akin to family. Being denied
the opportunity to experience the joy of a companion animal is a harm not just
to existing pet-owners, who relinquish their pet due to a ‘no pet’ covenant, but
also for those tenants who would like a companion animal but do not have one
because of a pet restriction in their lease.
In many countries domestic animals are deemed property at law. This legal sta-
tus disguises the seriousness of the loss for pet-owning tenants who are forced
to rehome their companion animal in order to obtain rental housing. Relegating
the loss to mere property loss downplays the magnitude of the harm suffered and
makes it easier for landlords, letting agents, courts, policymakers and lawmakers
in the housing arena to ignore the interests of companion animals. As property,
their interests can be readily trumped by human interests however trivial (Fran-
cione 1995). Categorising companion animals as kin (Fox 2004) and family mem-
bers (Kymlicka 2017) emphasises the strength of the human-companion animal
bond and its need for special legal protection in the rental sector (Rook 2018).
The character of the human-companion animal relationship as a socially sup-
portive, familial bond means that in Feinberg’s balancing strategy the magnitude
of the harm to tenants can be substantial. It can be deeply traumatic for a pet
owning tenant to be forced to relinquish their companion animal due to a ‘no pet’
covenant in a lease. This can have grave repercussions on the mental health of the
tenant. For example, an Early Day Motion for the UK Parliament in 2021 drew
attention to the death of John Chadwick who was lost to suicide “after he was
forced to give up his pets to move into temporary accommodation” (UK Parlia-
ment 2021). Therefore, in the balancing strategy the magnitude of harm to pet
owning tenants may need to be allocated significant weight in recognition of the
importance of the human-companion animal bond.
(ii) The probability of the harm
In respect of the probability of harm, Feinberg expresses the inverse variation
between magnitude of harm and probability as a formula,
“the greater the probability of harm, the less grave the harm need be to jus-
tify coercion; the greater the gravity of the envisioned harm, the less prob-
able it need be” (1987 at p.191).
The compound of magnitude and probability is the degree of risk. What is the
risk of private landlords suffering harm where legislation imposes a positive pet
policy? Until recently there was little academic research on the harm to landlords
that a positive pet policy would entail. A survey by the National Landlords Asso-
ciation in England found potential property damage to be the main reason land-
lords include the covenant in the lease (41%), followed by concerns about ten-
ants leaving the property smelling of animals (26%) and concerns about animals
causing annoyance to neighbours (22%) (NLA 2017). Similar reasons are cited
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
485
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
in Japan (Koohsari etal 2022). It is reasonable for private landlords to want to
protect the value of their property and to avoid nuisance claims from neighbours,
but the probability of that harm has to be considered, for example, research by
Cats Protection in England found that 89% of private landlords who allowed cats
had not experienced any damage to furniture or fittings belonging to the landlord
(Cats Protection 2019). Research suggests that serious harm to property by pets
is unlikely (Simcock etal 2024)and is less than that caused by children (Carlisle-
Frank etal. 2005). If the probability of harm is relatively small and the majority
of pet-owning tenants are responsible pet owners with well-behaved pets, then
the degree of risk to the interests of landlords and neighbouring tenants is small.
Alternative strategies exist to mitigate the risk of harm to landlords, for example,
refundable pet deposits and pet insurance both of which can be used to reduce
harm caused by property damage (Berezai 2021). For example, in England, the
White paper proposes amending existing legislation (Tenant Fees Act 2019) to
allow landlords to require pet-owning tenants to take out pet insurance to cover
any damage to property. However, financial strategies to mitigate harm caused
by pet damage to property need to be carefully managed so as not to dispropor-
tionately impact lower-income tenants (Applebaum et al 2021). A number of
states in the USA have passed laws to cap pet deposits and rent, for example,
Colorado House Bill 23-1068 came into effect on 1 January 2024. Covenants pro-
hibiting anti-social behaviour or behaviour that causes a nuisance to others can
be included in a lease to cover situations where irresponsible pet-owners fail to
remove faeces or use their dog to threaten others. Some countries are exploring
the way in which residential buildings can be designed to mitigate harm caused
by pets, for example, measures to reduce noise transition through walls in dense
cities like Tokyo in Japan (Koohsari et al 2022). Therefore, the probability of
harm is a relevant factor to be balanced in the Harm Assessment and alternative
strategies, that reduce the likelihood of harm, should be considered within this
calculation.
(iii) The relative importance of the harm.
This concept is used for a category of cases that Feinberg identified as being
genuinely problematic:
“… to prevent A from harming B’s interest in Y would be to harm A’s inter-
ests in X” (1987 at p.203).
Interestingly, in identifying these problematic cases Feinberg provides an
example that includes a dog barking and causing a nuisance,
“In nuisance law, there is a conflict between the plaintiff’s interest in the
peaceful enjoyment of his land and the defendant’s interest in keeping … a
howling dog” (1987 at p.204).
The regulation of ‘no pet’ covenants fall within this category of problematic
cases because to prevent landlords harming the interests of tenants living with
their companion animals would be to harm the interest of private landlords in
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
486
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
being able to control the use of their own property and protect its value. In dif-
ficult cases such as these legislators must compare the relative importance of the
conflicting interests. Feinberg acknowledges that ultimately it is in the discretion
of legislators to decide what weight to attach to conflicting interests as it is,
“impossible to prepare a detailed manual with the exact “weights” of all
human interests” (1987 at p.203).
However, he identifies certain “procedures for interest-balancing” (1987 at
p.204) that supplement the use of the harm principle in these circumstances. Other
things being equal, he argues, that legislators should:
(i) Protect an interest that is certain to be harmed in preference to one where harm
is conjectural; and
(ii) Prevent the total thwarting of one interest compared to a small invasion of
another interest.
These principles are relevant when balancing the conflicting interests of landlords
and tenants in the context of ‘no pet’ covenants. It is more certain that a pet-owning
tenant will be harmed if they are forced to relinquish their companion animal, with
whom they have a close relationship, than the landlord’s property interests will be
harmed if the animal is allowed to reside in the premises. Many dogs and cats are
well-behaved and cause little or no damage to rental property nor neighbourhoods.
Feinberg defines harm as the setback of an interest,
“but when interests of quite different kinds are invaded to the same degree,
where is the greater harm? That depends, of course, on which of the two kinds
of interest is the more important” (1987 at p.204).
This is especially relevant to ‘no pet’ covenants because the relative importance
of the interests (protection of the human-companion animal relationship versus
protection of inanimate property) is very different in reality although in law both
are given the same legal status as property. To help legislators decide the relative
importance of conflicting interests, Feinberg identifies three ways interests can dif-
fer: firstly, interests differ in their “vitality”, secondly, in the degree to which they
are reinforced by other interests and finally in their inherent moral quality (1987
at p.204). Vitality measures the extent of damage likely to be caused by harm to
the interest. For example, damage to one’s heart causes more harm to a person’s
health than an equal degree of damage to a less vital organ. Similarly, damage to a
person’s health and well-being causes more harm than an equal degree of damage
to a person’s inanimate property because welfare interests are usually the most vital
ones. Feinberg’s formula to assist in assessing the relative importance of conflicting
interests is as follows:
“Where a standard person’s interest of high vitality in his system conflicts with
another standard person’s interest of relatively low vitality in his system, then,
other things being equal, the former interest can be deemed more important
than the latter” (1987 at p.205).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
487
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
It is not an easy task to categorise interests as more or less vital. There is a sim-
plicity in advocating that a person’s interest in protecting the human-companion ani-
mal relationship, a relationship that many owners perceive as family, is more vital
than a landlord’s interest in protecting their property from potential damage but this
can hide the complex relationship between finances and a person’s mental health. If
a private landlord depends on their rental property for income, damage to the prop-
erty can cause serious anxiety and hardship. However, it must be acknowledged that
there is always some risk of damage to rental property whether a tenant has a pet or
not (hence the use of refundable deposits).
Feinberg acknowledges further complexities in determining the question of vital-
ity due to the way in which,
“Interests tend to pile up and reinforce one another” (1987 at p.205).
The aggregative nature of harm is especially relevant here because restrictions on
pets in rental housing has an impact beyond the immediate landlord and pet-owning
tenant and can harm wider society. The benefits pet ownership can bring to the well-
being of local communities and social institutions can be diminished by the exten-
sive use of ‘no pet’ covenants in rental housing. Research in numerous countries,
including England, Australia and Japan, shows that companion dogs can increase
social connectedness in local communities creating higher levels of social capital
(Wood etal 2015, 2017; Koohsari etal 2021).
Since Friedmann etal.’s ground breaking research in 1980 that discovered that pet
owners had better survival and recovery rates one year after discharge from a coro-
nary unit than non-pet owners (Friedmann etal 1980), there have been many studies
across the world attempting to measure the effects of pet ownership on human health
(Friedmann etal. 2000; McNicholas etal. 2005; Wells 2009; Freidmann etal. 2013;
El-Qushayri etal. 2020; Kramer et al. 2019; Taniguchi etal 2023). A comprehen-
sive study in Sweden, involving 3.4 million people over a 12-year period, found that
owning a dog lowered the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, especially for
single people (Mubanga etal 2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis found
a 31% risk reduction from cardiovascular mortality for dog owners (Kramer etal.
2019). However, this growing body of research is relevant to wider society and not
just to the individuals affected. Research from Germany and Australia indicates pet
owners rely less on medication and make fewer visits to the doctor than non-pet
owners (Headey etal 2002). It is estimated that the health benefits of pet ownership
in the UK may save the National Health Service up to £2.45 billion a year (Hall etal
2017).
Studies conducted in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia investigating the rea-
sons for relinquishing dogs to a shelter found that for owner-related reasons (as
opposed to animal-related reasons such as behaviour) the most common reason
given by owners was ‘moving home’ and the restrictions imposed by landlords were
a key factor (Shore etal. 2003; Coe etal 2014; Eagan etal 2022). There is an eco-
nomic cost to society when shelters and charities need to rehome companion ani-
mals so the fact that these animals already have families who want to keep them
represents a waste of societal resources (Stavisky etal 2012; Graham etal 2018).
Another aggregative interest to consider in the balancing exercise is that of the
companion animals themselves. At an individual level, the forced separation of a
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
488
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
companion animal from their owner raises significant welfare concerns for the ani-
mal: they face the stress of being separated from their owners; living in kennels;
adapting to a new home or in some cases, euthanasia (Fox and Ray 2019). How-
ever, the welfare of companion animals is a complex factor that can work both ways
in the Harm Assessment. Since many cats and dogs suffer through pet ownership,
for example, due to cruelty, neglect, becoming victims of domestic violence, endur-
ing unsuitable care such as lack of exercise for dogs, underfeeding or overfeeding
leading to obesity, living in unsuitable or stressful environments, it is arguable that
easing restrictions on pets in rental housing may lead to more animals being kept
as pets and consequently an overall increase in animal suffering. For this reason, it
is important that effective animal welfare laws are in place wherever a country or
state enacts legislation that makes it easier to keep pets in private rental housing.
For example, in England it is an offence to fail to take reasonable steps to meet the
welfare needs of an animal for which you are responsible (s.9, Animal Welfare Act
2006). This includes providing a suitable environment.
Applying Feinberg’s ‘aggregative nature of the harm’ principle to ‘no pet’ cov-
enants demonstrates the complexity of the interest-balancing exercise. The relevant
factors go beyond those of landlords and pet-owning tenants. There are wider impli-
cations due to the build-up of reinforcing interests, both personal and societal. These
wider interests are currently ignored wherever legal systems leave it to individual
landlords and tenants to negotiate the keeping of pets.
Conclusion
This article adopts a global perspective to the socio-legal problem of ‘no pet’ cov-
enants in rental housing something that the existing literature has largely overlooked
instead focusing on single countries. A global perspective has the benefit of demon-
strating how ‘no pet’ covenants affect millions of people across the world and allows
for a comparison of different legal approaches Three broad legal approaches are
identified: no legal regulation; some legal regulation to protect pets in rental hous-
ing but with significant restrictions and finally legal regulation that protects the right
to live with pets with few or no restrictions. A global perspective shows how pet-
owning tenants in different countries can face similar harms, for example, tenants in
both Australia and Canada reported suffering poor-quality housing. It also highlights
how cultural and religious factors can underlie significant differences, for example,
the different perception of dogs in India and Malaysia compared to the UK and USA
which can impact on how landlords view tenants with companion dogs.
For those countries with no existing laws on pets and housing, this article pro-
vides a theoretical framework to assess the need for legal regulation of ‘no pet’ cove-
nants. The article offers a framework, based on a Harm Assessment (drawing on the
work of Feinberg in criminal law and applied by analogy), through which to balance
the disparate rights of all those affected by ‘no pet’ covenants—landlords, tenants,
neighbours, companion animals and wider society—and thereby critically analyse
the need for legislation to regulate the use of the covenants. A Harm Assessment
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
489
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
approach is in line with the existing literature which identifies harm as an overarch-
ing theme.
Cultural factors must be considered and will impact on the balancing exercise in
the Harm Assessment. Therefore, more empirical research on the impact of no pet
covenants on the various stakeholders is needed to support the effective use of the
Harm Assessment. Most of the existing research is from the USA, Canada, Australia
and the UK and therefore more research from other countries, for example, Asia
and Africa, especially Muslim countries where dogs are seen as unclean, is needed
given the different cultural influences at play in these countries. The identification of
harm, its magnitude and probability and the weighting attached to different harms
may vary in different cultural, religious and geographic contexts.
The importance of the human-companion animal relationship to residential ten-
ants is central to assessing the character and magnitude of the harm pet-owning ten-
ants may endure. Research shows that many pet owners perceive their companion
animals as family members which is at odds with the current legal status of domestic
animals as property. Relegating a tenant’s forced separation from their companion
animal to the realms of property loss understates the impact of the separation on the
tenant’s life. The consideration of the probability of harm paves the way for alterna-
tive strategies to be adopted to reduce the risk of harm to the landlord, for example,
pet insurance and anti-social behaviour covenants. Those countries that leave the
question of pets to freedom of contract between the landlord and tenant ignore the
aggregative nature of harm, disregarding the ways in which pet ownership can ben-
efit communities and society.
If the Renters Reform Bill 2023–24 becomes law in England it will enable more
tenants to keep companion animals in private rental housing. In this way the law rec-
ognises the strength of the human-companion animal bond and seeks to protect it in
the rental housing sector. It seeks to balance the interests of the parties by allowing
landlords to retain some control over the animals that are kept on their property. The
tenant must make a written request for consent and the landlord is able to refuse con-
sent where it is reasonable to do so, for example, if the tenant asks to keep a dangerous
animal. Damage to property is a legitimate concern for private landlords but using
Feinberg’s theory of harm the magnitude and probability of that harm is relevant. The
Bill addresses the risk of property damage by a provision covering indemnity and
insurance for pets. This seeks to reduce the magnitude of any harm to the landlord.
However, there are concerns with the Bill as it currently stands, for example, how it
appears to favour the acquisition of new pets over the welfare of existing pets (Animal
Sentience Committee 2024), for example, the long length of time a tenant may have
to wait to hear a landlord’s response to their request for consent (42–49days)which
could seriously diminish the effectiveness of any new law for pet-owning tenants.
The Harm Assessment approach enables the harms and benefits of all the relevant
stakeholders to be taken into account in the balancing exercise. Concentrating on
the nature and significance of the human-companion animal relationship to tenants,
animals and wider society shifts the focus of ‘no pet’ covenants away from the con-
cept of a ‘controller of risk’ to that of ‘contributor to harm’ thereby highlighting the
harmful effects the covenants can have on people and companion animals.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
490
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of
interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen
ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Ang, Shermaine. 2023. HDB residents could soon own up to 2 cats per flat as Govt proposes lifting
34-year ban. The Straits Times, 4 December 2023. https:// www. strai tstim es. com/ singa pore/ hdb-
resid ents- could- soon- own- up- to-2- cats- per- flat- from- late- 2024. Accessed 14 Dec 2023.
Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). 2015. Guidelines with respect to Pet & Street Dogs, and their
Care-Givers, and for Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners Accessed Asso-
ciations. 26 Feb 2015. https:// awbi. gov. in/ uploa ds/ circu lar/ 16328 25658 95pet_ dog_ circu lar_ 26_2_
2015. pdf
Animal & Veterinary Service Singapore (AVS). Dogs in HDB flats. https:// www. nparks. gov. sg/ avs/ pets/
owning- a- pet/ licen sing-a- pet/ dogs- in- hdb- flats. Accessed 14 Dec 2023.
Animal Sentience Committee. 2024. Renters (Reform) Bill report. https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ publi
catio ns/ animal- senti ence- commi ttee- rente rs- reform- bill- report/ animal- senti ence- commi ttee- rente rs-
reform- bill- report. Accessed 24 Apr 2024.
Applebaum, Jennifer W., Kevin Horecka, Lauren Loney, and Taryn M. Graham. 2021. Pet-friendly for
whom? An analysis of pet fees in Texas rental housing. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8: 767149.
Battersea. 2018. ‘Pet friendly properties: Bringing people and pets together for happier homes’. https://
www. batte rsea. org. uk/ suppo rt- us/ campa igns/ pet- frien dly- prope rties. Accessed 8 May 2022.
Berezai, Jen. 2021. Heads for tails! How amending the tenant fees act could be the answer to more pets
in rented accommodation. https:// www. advoc atsea stmids. org. uk/ wpcon tent/ uploa ds/ 2021/ 09/ Heads-
for- Tails- Septe mber- 2021. pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2022.
Bonas, Sheila, June McNicholas, and Glyn M. Collis. 2000. Pets in the network of family relationships:
An empirical study. In Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships between people and
pets, ed. Anthony L. Podberscek, Elizabeth S. Paul, and James A. Serpell, 209–236. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cain, Ann Ottney. 1985. Pets as family members. In Pets and the family, ed. M. Sussman, 5–10. New
York: The Haworth Press.
Campbell, Heather L. 2009. The reasonable requirement standard in Saskatchewan’s residential tenancies
act and no pet clauses in the social housing context. Sask. L. Rev 72 (2): 257–279.
Carlisle-Frank, Pamela, Joshua M. Frank, and Lindsey Nielsen. 2005. Companion animal renters and pet-
friendly housing in the US. Anthrozoos 18 (1): 59–77.
Cats Protection (2019) Purrfect landlords: A guide. Available at: https:// www. cats. org. uk/ media/ 1571/
purrf ect- landl ords- report. pdf. Accessed 8 May 2022.
Charles, Nickie, and Charlotte Aull Davies. 2008. My family and other animals: Pets as kin. Sociological
Research Online 13 (5): 1–14.
Cleary, Michelle, Sancia West, Denis Visentin, Monique Phipps, Mark Westman, Kristina Vest, and
Rachel Kornhaber. 2021. The unbreakable bond: The mental health benefits and challenges of pet
ownership for people experiencing homelessness. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 42 (8): 741–746.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
491
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
Coe, Jason, Ian Young, Kim Lambert, Laura Dysart, Lea Nogueira Borden, and Andrijana Rajic. 2014. A
scoping review of published research on relinquishment of companion animals. Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare Science 17: 253–273.
Corfmat, J., A.D. Gibson, R.J. Mellanby, M. Watson, G. Appupillai, G. Yale, and S. Mazeri. 2023. Com-
munity attitudes and perceptions towards free-roaming dogs in Goa, India. Journal of Applied Ani-
mal Welfare Science 26 (4): 565–581.
Dafna, Shir-Vertesh. 2012. “Flexible Personhood”: Loving animals as family members in Israel. Ameri-
can Anthropologist 114: 420–432.
Daily Express Property. 2020. When Apartment managements say no to pets. 9 March 2020. https:// www.
daily expre ss. com. my/ inter est/ 343/ when- apart ment- manag ements- say- no- to- pets/# google_ vigne tte.
Accessed 14 Dec 2023.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities. 2022. A fairer private rented sector. White paper.
https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ publi catio ns/a- fairer- priva te- rented- sector/ a- fairer- priva te- rented-
sector# chapt er-6- a- posit ive- renti ng- exper ience. Accessed 16 Jun 2023.
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. 2024. New law will create a new specific offence
for dog and cat abduction. https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ news/ gover nment- backs- new- pet- abduc
tion- law- in- pet- theft- crack down. Accessed 9 Feb 2024.
Deshpande, Swati. 2023. To treat stray dogs with cruelty is unacceptable in civil society: Bombay HC.
The Times of India, 29 March 2023. https:// times ofind ia. india times. com/ city/ mumbai/ to- treat-
stray- dogs- with- cruel ty- is- unacc eptab le- in- civil- socie ty- bombay- hc/ artic leshow/ 99073 937. cms.
Accessed 24 Nov 2023.
Eagan, Bailey H., Emilia Gordon, and Alexandra Protopopova. 2022. Reasons for guardian-relinquish-
ment of dogs to shelters: Animal and regional predictors in British Columbia, Canada. Frontiers in
Veterinary Science 9: 857634. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fvets. 2022. 857634
El-Qushayri, Amr Ehab, Ahmed M.A.. Kamel, Hazem Abdelkarem Faraj, Nguyen Lam Vuong, Omar M.
Diab, Sedralmontaha Istanbuly, etal. 2020. Association between pet ownership and cardiovascular
risks and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine
21: 359–67.
Enders-Slegers, Marie. 2000. The meaning of companion animals: qualitative analysis of the life histories
of elderly cat and dog owners. In Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships between
people and pets, ed. Anthony L. Podberscek, Elizabeth S. Paul, and James A. Serpell, 237–256.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feinberg, Joel. 1987. The moral limits of the criminal law: Volume 1 harm to others. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fitzgerald, Amy. 2007. “They gave me a reason to live”: The protective effects of companion animals on
the suicidality of abused women. Humanity and Society 31 (4): 355–378.
Flynn, Clifton. 2000. Battered women and their animal companions: Symbolic interaction between
human and non-human animals. Society and Animals 8: 99–127.
Fox, Marie. 2004. Rethinking kinship: Law’s construction of the animal body. Current Legal Problems
57 (1): 469–493.
Fox, Marie, and Mo. Ray. 2019. No pets allowed? Companion animals, older people and residential care.
Medical Humanities 45: 211–222.
Francione, Gary. 1995. Animals, property and the law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Friedmann, Erika, Aaron Honori Katcher, James J. Lynch, and Sue Ann Thomas. 1980. Animal compan-
ions and one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary unit. Public Health Reports
95: 307–312.
Friedmann, Erika, Sue Ann Thomas, and T.J. Eddy. 2000. Companion animals and human health: Physi-
cal and cardiovascular influences. In Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships
between people and pets, ed. Anthony L. Podberscek, Elizabeth S. Paul, and James A. Serpell, 125–
142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedmann, Erika, Sue Ann Thomas, H. Son, D. Chapa, and Sandra Mccune. 2013. Pet’s presence and
owner’s blood pressures during the daily lives of pet owners with pre-to-mild hypertension. Anthro-
zoos 26 (2): 535–550.
Graham, Taryn M., Katrina J. Milaney, Cindy L. Adams, and Melanie J. Rock. 2018. “Pets negotiable”:
How do the perspectives of landlords and property managers compare with those of younger tenants
with dogs? Animals 8 (3): 32–44.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
492
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
Graham, Taryn M., and Melanie J. Rock. 2018. The spillover effect of a flood on pets and their people:
Implications for rental housing. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
10888 705. 2018. 14768 63.
Hall, Sophie, Luke Dolling, Katie Bristow, Ted Fuller, and Daniel S. Mills. 2017. Companion animal
economics: The economic impact of companion animals in the UK. Wallingford: CABI Publishers.
Hamano, S. 2013. Katei Dobutsu to no Tsukiai [Relations with the family animals]. In Nihon no Doubutsu
Kan: Hito to dobutsu no Kankei Shi [Japanese attitudes toward animals: A history of human-animal
relations in Japan], ed. O. Ishida, S. Hamano, M. Hanazono, and A. Setoguchi, 19–35. Tokyo: Uni-
versity of Tokyo Press.
Harker, Rachel M., Glyn M. Collis, and June McNicholas. 2000. The influence of current relationships
upon pet animal acquisition. In Companion animals and Us: Exploring the relationships between
people and pets, ed. Anthony L. Podberscek, Elizabeth S. Paul, and James A. Serpell, 189–208.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Headey, Bruce, Markus Grabka, Jonathan Kelley, Prasuna Reddy, and Yi-Ping. Tseng. 2002. Pet own-
ership is good for your health and saves public expenditure too: Australian and German longitu-
dinal evidence. Australian Social Monitor 5 (4): 93.
Herzog, Harold. 2011. The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: Fact, fic-
tion, or hypothesis? Current Directions in Psychological Science 20: 236–239.
Housing New Zealand (2018) Policy for pets. https:// kaing aora. govt. nz/ assets/ Publi catio ns/ OIAs-
Offic ial- Infor mation- Reque sts/ July- 2021/ Attac hment- Policy- for- Pets. pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2023.
Housing & Development Board (HDB) (2022) About us. https:// www. hdb. gov. sg/ cs/ infow eb/ about-
us. Accessed 14 Dec 2023.
Housing & Development Board (HDB) (2023) Keeping pets. https:// www. hdb. gov. sg/ resid ential/ liv-
ing- in- an- hdb- flat/ keepi ng- pets. Accessed 14 Dec 2023.
Human Animal Bond Research Institute (HABRI). 2022. New Research confirms the strong bond
between people and pets is a global phenomenon, 95% worldwide says pets are family’. https://
habri. org/ press room/ 20220 116. Accessed 12 Feb 2024.
Huss, Rebecca. 2005. No pets allowed: Housing issues and companion animals. Animal Law 11:
69–129.
Hutton, Vicki. 2015. Social provisions of the human-animal relationship amongst 30 people living
with HIV in Australia. Anthrozoös 28 (2): 199–214.
Irvine, Leslie. 2013a. My dog always eats first: Homeless people and their animals. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Irvine, Leslie. 2013b. Animals as lifechangers and lifesavers: Pets in the redemption narratives among
homeless people. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 42 (1): 3–30.
Irvine, Leslie, and Laurent Cilia. 2017. More-than-human families: Pets, people and practices in mul-
tispecies households. Sociology Compass. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ soc4. 12455.
Jegatheesan, Brinda. 2019. Influence of cultural and religious factors on attitudes towards animals. In
Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice, ed.
Aubrey H. Fine. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Jegatheesan, Brinda, Elizabeth Ormerod, Taryn M. Graham, Wendy Stone, Emma Power, Debbie
Rook, and Sandra McCune. 2024. Pets and housing: A one health/one welfare issue. In The rout-
ledge international handbook of human animal interactions and anthrozoology, ed. Aubrey H.
Fine, Megan K. Mueller, Zenithson Y. Ng, Alan M. Beck, and Jose M. Peralta. Milton Park:
Routledge.
Kaminska-Jones, Dorota. 2020. Multiple roles of dogs in India: culture, art and the colonial context. Art
of the Orient. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11588/ ao. 2020.1. 16115.
Koohsari, Mohammad Javad, Akitomo Yasunaga, Gavin R. McCormack, Tomoki Nakaya, Yukari Nagai,
and Koichiro Oka. 2022. The design challenges for dog ownership and dog walking in dense urban
areas: The case of Japan. Frontiers in Public Health. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpubh. 2022. 904122.
Koohsari, Mohammad Javad, Akitomo Yasunaga, Ai. Shibata, Kaori Ishii, Rina Miyawaki, Kuniko Araki,
Tomoki Nakaya, Tomoya Hanibuchi, Gavin R. McCormack, and Koichiro Oka. 2021. Dog owner-
ship, dog walking, and social capital. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8: 1–6.
Kramer, Caroline K., Sadia Mehmood, and Renee Suen. 2019. Dog ownership and survival: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 12: e005554.
Kymlicka, Will. 2017. Social Membership: Animal law beyond the property/personhood impasse. Dal-
housie LJ 40(1): 123–155.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
493
‘No Pet’ Covenants andtheLaw: AHarm Assessment Approach to…
LiuPowell, ShengxinLauren, Debbie Chia, Tom C. Russ, Paul D. McGreevy, Adrian E. Bauman, Kate
M. Edwards, and Emmanuel Stamatakis. 2019. Is dog ownership associated with mental health? A
population study of 68,362 adults living in England. Anthrozoös 32 (6): 729–739.
Majumder, Sreejani Sen, Ankita Chatterjee, and Anindita Bhadra. 2014. A dog’s day with humans – time
activity budget of free-ranging dogs in India. Current Science 106 (6): 874–878.
McNicholas, June. 2007. Pets and older people in residential care. A report funded by Society for Com-
panion Animal Studies (SCAS) and Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association (PFMA). Available at:
http:// www. scas. org. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2013/ 03/3. Pets_ and_ older_ people_ report. pdf
McNicholas, June, Andrew Gilbey, Ann Rennie, Sam Ahmedzai, Jo-Ann. Dono, and Elizabeth Ormerod.
2005. Pet ownership and human health: A brief review of the evidence and issues. British Medical
Journal 331: 1252. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. 331. 7527. 1252.
Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty available at John M. Robson (ed) Collected Works of John Stuart
Mill, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963–91 available online at the Online Library of Lib-
erty (http:// oll. liber tyfund. org/).
Mogul, Rhea, and Sania Farooqui, S. 2023. The fatal mauling of a 4-year-old forces India to grapple with
stray dog problems. CNN news. https:// editi on. cnn. com/ 2023/ 04/ 01/ india/ india- stray- dog- attack-
debate- intl- hnk/ index. html
Montgomery, Jasmine, Zhanming Liang, and Janice Lloyd. 2024. A scoping review of forced separation
between people and their companion animals. Anthrozoös. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08927 936. 2023.
22873 15.
Mubanga, Mwenya, Liisa Byberg, Christoph Nowak, Agneta Egenvall, Patrick K. Magnusson, Erik
Ingelsson, and Tove Fall. 2017. Dog ownership and the risk of cardiovascular disease and death – A
nationwide cohort study. Scientific Reports 7 (1): 15821.
National Landlords Association. 2017. Tenancy deposit cap. Available at: https:// landl ords. org. uk/ sites/
defau lt/ files/ 2017- 12/ NLA% 20Bri efing% 20-% 20Ten ancy% 20Dep osit% 20Cap. pdf. Accessed 25
June 2023
O’Reilly-Jones, Kate. 2019. When Fido is family: How landlord-imposed pet bans restrict access to hous-
ing. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 52 (3): 427–472.
Palluzi, Laurel. 2013. Four-Legged Tenants: Encouraging Pet-Friendly Housing While Protecting Land-
lords from Liability. Mid-Atlantic J. on L. and Pub. Pol’y, 2: 101.
Pet Food Manufacturers Association, PFMA (now known as UK Pet Food). 2021. Pet population survey.
https:// www. ukpet food. org/ resou rce/ pfma- relea ses- latest- pet- popul ation- data. html
Power, Emma. 2008. Furry families: Making a human-dog family through home. Social and Cultural
Geography 9 (5): 535–555.
Power, Emma. 2017. Renting with pets; A pathway to housing insecurity? Housing Studies 32 (3):
336–360.
Ratschen, Elena, Emily Shoesmith, Lion Shahab, Karine Silva, Dimitra Kale, Paul Toner, Catherine
Reeve, and Daniel S. Mills. 2020. Human-animal relationships and interactions during the Covid-19
lockdown phase in the UK: Investigating links with mental health and loneliness. PLoS One 15 (9):
e0239397. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02393 97.
Reniers, P., I.J.N. Declercq, K. Hediger, M.-J. Enders-Slegers, D.L. Gerritsen, and R. Leontjevas. 2022.
The role of pets in the support systems of community-dwelling older adults: A qualitative system-
atic review. Aging and Mental Health 27 (7): 1377–1387.
Rook, Deborah. 2018. For the love of Darcie—recognising the human-companion animal relationship in
housing law and policy. Liverpool Law Review 39: 29–46.
Sanders, Clinton R. 1990. Excusing tactics: Social responses to the public misbehaviour of companion
animals. Anthrozoös 4 (2): 82–90.
Serpell, James A. 1996. In the company of animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shore, E.R., Connie L. Petersen, and Deanna K. Douglas. 2003. Moving as a reason for pet relinquish-
ment: A closer look. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6 (1): 39–52.
Silva, Elizabeth B., and Carol Smart. 1999. The new family? London: Sage Publications.
Simcock, Tom, Lindsey McCarthy, Alper Kara and Phil Brown. 2024. The financial impact of pet own-
ership in rental properties: summary briefing. Huddersfield, UK: The University of Huddersfield.
https:// healt hy- housi ng. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2024/ 04/ Finan cial- impact- pet- owner ship- PRS-
summa ry- briefi ng. pdf.
Statista. 2022. Share of Malaysian population in 2020, by religion. https:// www. stati sta. com/ stati stics/
594657/ relig ious- affil iation- in- malay sia/ Accessed 10 Nov 2023.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
494
D.Rook, B.I.Jegatheesan
Stavisky, Jenny, Marnie L. Brennan, Martin Downes, and Rachel Dean. 2012. Demographics and eco-
nomic burden of un-owned cats and dogs in the UK: Results of a 2010 census. BMC Veterinary
Research 8: 163–171.
Stone, Wendy, Emma Power, Selina Tually, Amity James, Debbie Faulkner, Zoe Goodall, and Caitlin
Buckle. 2021. Housing and housing assistance pathways with companion animals: Risks, costs,
benefits and opportunities. AHURI Final Report. No. 350, Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute Limited, Melbourne https:// www. ahuri. edu. au/ resea rch/ final- repor ts/ 350. Accessed 18 Sep
2023.
Taniguchi, Yu., Satoshi Seino, Tomoko Ikeuchi, Toshiki Hata, Shoji Shinkai, Akihiko Kitamura, and
Yoshinori Fujiwara. 2023. Protective effects of dog ownership against the onset of disabling demen-
tia in older community-dwelling Japanese: A longitudinal study. Preventative Medicine Reports 36:
102465.
Thiagarajan, Kamala. 2020. Man bites dog: India’s progress in tackling rabies. British Medical Journal
(online) 368: l6979. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. l6979.
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. 2020. Pet Ownership in Public Housing. https://
www. hud. gov/ sites/ dfiles/ PIH/ docum ents/ PHOGP etOwn ership. pdf Accessed 11 Dec 2023.
UK Parliament. 2021. Anniversary of the death of John Chadwick. Early Day Motion EDM 1648. https://
edm. parli ament. uk/ early- day- motion/ 58277/ anniv ersary- of- the- death- of- john- chadw ick
Walsh, Froma. 2009. Human-animal bonds II: The role of pets in family systems and family therapy.
Family Process. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1545- 5300. 2009. 01297.x.
Washburn Hopkins, Edward. 1894. The dog in the rig-veda. The American Journal of Philology. 15 (2):
154–163.
Weiss, Robert. 1974. The provisions of social relationships. In Doing unto others, ed. Zick Rubin, 17–26.
Engelwoods Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Wells, Deborah L. 2009. The effects of animals on human health and well-being. Journal of Social Issues
65: 523–543.
WHO World Health Organization, Rabies in India. https:// www. who. int/ india/ health- topics/ rabies.
Accessed 17 Dec 2023.
Wood, Lisa, Karen Martin, Hayley Christian, Steve Houghton, Ichiro Kawachi, Shannen Vallesi, and San-
dra McCune. 2017. Social capital and pet ownership—A tale of four cities. SSM-Population Health
3: 442–447.
Wood, Lisa, Karen Martin, Hayley Christian, Andrea Nathan, Claire Lauritsen, Steve Houghton, Ichiro
Kawachi, and Sandra McCune. 2015. The pet factor—Companion animals as a conduit for getting to
know people, friendship formation and social support. PLoS One 10 (4): e0122085. https:// doi. org/
10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 01220 85.
Wu, Alice. 2023. As Singapore lifts cat ban in public housing, Hong Kong should do same for dogs.
South China Morning Post. 11 December 2023. https:// www. scmp. com/ comme nt/ opini on/ artic le/
32444 17/ singa pore- lifts- cat- ban- public- housi ng- hong- kong- should- do- same- dogs Accessed 14 Dec
2023.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
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
