Dog Park

Dog parks are much more than just fenced-in areas for dogs to play. They are hubs of physical and mental exercise, socialization, and community-building for both dogs and their owners. By providing a safe and enjoyable environment for our furry companions, dog parks contribute to the overall well-being and happiness of our beloved pets. Dog parks are not just for dogs; they are gathering places for dog owners as well. These spaces create a sense of community among pet lovers, fostering friendships and support networks.


 2022 Sep; 12(17): 2251.
Published online 2022 Aug 31. doi: 10.3390/ani12172251
PMCID: PMC9455081
PMID: 36077971

Benefits and Conflicts: A Systematic Review of Dog Park Design and Management Strategies

Laura A. Reese, Academic Editor


Simple Summary

Dog parks contribute physical and social benefits for both canines and their owners, especially during and since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, dogs in public places can create various conflicts. Growing numbers of scholars have explored strategies for effective park design and management. This systematic study synthesizes and analyze the benefits, conflicts, and strategies for the design and management of dog parks according to the PRISMA guidelines. Based on the summary of conflicts between canines, humans, and their environment, we present design and management guidance for dog parks to effectively mitigate these conflicts while enhancing the benefits of off-leash areas. While this study promotes a sustainable and healthy coexistence of canines and residents of built environments through appropriate design and management strategies, several research and practice gaps have been identified from the results, such as the dearth of experimental evidence and limitations of the physical benefits of dog parks. These research gaps provide opportunities for experts to address in future.


Dog ownership and dog walking brings various health benefits for urban dwellers, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, but trigger a number of controversies. Dog parks have become increasingly significant public resources in the pandemic to support these benefits while facing intense conflicts. To develop effective dog parks in urban settings, growing numbers of scholars have provided insights into the design and management strategies for addressing the benefits and conflicts. The objective of this study is to synthesize and analyze various aspects of dog park design and management and to assess identified strategies for enhancing their benefits while mitigating their drawbacks. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic study was conducted to synthesize the benefits, conflicts, and management strategies of dog parks, supported by Citespace. Benefits and conflicts in dog park design and management have been synthesized and organized according to their frequency of presence and the statistical results. We analyzed and assessed existing design and management strategies. Through this systematic study, we discovered the need obtain o po experimental evidence on effective dog park design and management to enhance their benefits while mitigating their sources of conflict and limitations in the intensity of park visitors’ physical activity in off-leash areas. Guidelines for the design and management strategies for effective dog parks were made to enhance their benefits while alleviating conflicts in the future development of sustainable dog parks that promote healthy relationships between canines and residents in urban built environments.

Keywords: dog ownership, dog park, dog walking, health benefits, off-leash area, physical activity

1. Introduction

1.1. Dog Ownership and the Impacts

Dog-ownership accounts for a significant proportion of households across countries []. A high proportion of dog ownership provides various benefits, including increased physical activity [,], social and mental health benefits [,], reduced cardiovascular risk [], and all-cause mortality [], as identified by both experimental studies and systematic reviews. During and since the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lockdowns, restrictions, dog ownership, and attachment have been found to be related to fewer mental and physical health issues [,,,,]. Additional studies documented the health benefits of owning dogs for various groups, including children [,], the elderly [], and populations with disabilities [,]. However, in the meantime, the presence of domestic dogs in urban areas is subject to various environmental and social conflicts arising from the presence of dog feces [] and conflicts between dog owners and non-dog owners in public open spaces [,].

1.2. Growing Demands for Dog Parks

While many countries and cities retain strict regulations for dogs in public spaces, the prevalence of dog ownership and both its positive and negative impacts amidst increasing urban densities, highlight the need for safe and controllable environments for dogs and their owners. Given this situation, the development of dog parks therefore has emerged a solution. A dog park is defined as a designed off-leash area offering opportunities for people and their dogs to socialize and exercise legally [,]. Most dog parks are built within larger urban parks although some created as stand-alone parks [,]. Dog parks are a feasible option for satisfying the physical and social needs of dogs and their owners, while providing separation for non-dog owners who may be offended by dogs. However, minimizing the issues commonly found with dog parks inevitably relies on effective design strategies []. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant increase in dog park visitation []. The growing need for dog parks has shown a need for research that analyzes the benefits and issues of dog parks for the benefit of scholars, designers, park managers, and policymakers.

1.3. Aspects of Dog Parks

Many scholars have asserted that as built environmental resources, dog parks tend to strengthen a myriad of positive impacts of dog ownership [,,]. The primary benefits of dog parks can be generalized into physical and social dimensions. Many studies have acknowledged that a nearby dog park can encourage physical activity, through dog walking and play, which consequently contributes to human and canine physical health [,,,,]. Moreover, dog parks provide a space for dogs and their owners to meet and become acquainted with each other, which enhances social interactions for both individuals and their dogs [,]. Socializing in dog parks can result in greater positive feelings towards the neighborhood, enhancing the sense of community and social capital [,,,,,,]. Other related benefits of dog parks include reduced aggressiveness of dogs, resulting in better controlled dogs [], and reduced criminal activity []. These benefits should be advocated through effective design strategies for dog parks.

Although dog parks provide benefits for both individuals and their dogs, considerable opposition in the design process should not be overlooked. Some issues caused by domestic dogs are often aggravated in dog parks because of the concentrated gathering of dogs. Some studies indicated negative impacts of dog waste on plants, causing soil erosion, unpleasant odors, and the transmission of diseases [,]. Canine aggression including dog fights and bites can be a severe phenomenon in dog parks and may result in injuries and controversies. However, it remains questionable if the environmental and health issues related to humans and their dogs can be addressed in the design of dog parks [].

The design of the built environment can either facilitate or hinder activities such as dog walking []. In order to strengthen related activities within dog parks, an increasing number of design guidelines/strategies have been developed for researchers and practitioners. With the advancement of research, most recent studies indicate design strategies should consider the benefits and problems of dog parks beforehand []. Systematic studies have also suggested that the primary goal of dog park design should be to enhance their benefits while reduce their conflicts in place [].

1.4. Research Objective

Dog parks are constructed to provide opportunities for individuals and their dogs to achieve health benefits while mitigating the conflicts between people, animals, and the environment. Design strategies for dog parks should target strengthening these benefits and while mitigating their problems. Even though emerging research suggests that dog park design strategies should be formulated in terms of their benefits and conflicts, no study has investigated whether the existing design strategies match the increased benefits and conflicts of dog parks, or assess if the design of dog parks can support the provision of health benefits while relieving these conflicts. To address these research gaps, this systematic study first synthesizes and analyzes the existing pros and cons and design/management strategies of dog parks. Based on the analysis, we provide recommendations for future planners, researchers, and decision-makers to optimize the design and research processes for dog parks. To achieve the research objective, the following detailed research questions were explored in this study:

  • (a)
    What are the existing benefits of dog parks?
  • (b)
    What are the conflicts that have happened in the dog parks?
  • (c)
    What are the design strategies for dog parks?
  • (d)
    What are the management strategies for dog parks?
  • (e)
    How is it possible to endorse the benefits and minimizing the conflicts while determining the design and management strategies of dog parks?


2. Method

To answer the research questions, a systematic study was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) [], using the support of Citespace to investigate the knowledge structure of canine-related relevant studies.

2.1. Search Criteria and Strategy

Inclusion criteria of this study are English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles and full-text academic dissertations and theses [], in which dog parks are mentioned or the thematic focus. More specifically, our review focused on articles pertaining to: (1) aspects of domestic dogs and dog-related activities in urban open space, including both the benefits and problems; (2) design and/or management strategies of dog parks/off-leash areas of urban open space. Articles that did not focus on the settings of dog parks or urban off-leash areas were excluded from this review.

First, Citespace was employed to determine the knowledge structure of relevant fields, by exploring the development and importance of the dog park research. Second, the in-depth systematic review was conducted following PRISMA. In order to fully cover the relevant concepts of dog parks, the search key words included: “dog park” OR “off-leash area” OR “dog walking” OR “dog ownership” OR “canine”. An online search with these keywords was conducted in Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Results from the keyword search were scanned for their titles and abstracts to determine the full-text articles for analyses. Additional literature that aligned with the search criteria, detected from the reference lists of the full-text articles, were also included for subsequent screening.

2.2. Data Extraction and Analysis

According to PRISMA, relevant content from the selected articles was extracted and analyzed. In addition to the benefits, problems, and design/management strategies of dog parks, we also explored research objectives, methods, and connections between the pros and cons and the design and management strategies. In order to address the core research questions of this study of whether/how the existing design/management strategies of dog parks correspond to the identified benefits and problems, we analyzed the strategies, problems, and benefits of dog parks, as well as the logic underpinning the development of design/management strategies.

3. Results

3.1. Citespace Analyses

For the topics of “dog walking” or “dog ownership”, and “benefit”, Citespace conducted with the WOS displayed the time span of retrieval from the year of 1990 to 2022. A total of 1276 journal articles were obtained. The number of studies has grown steadily since 2000, which indicated the topic is worthy of in-depth discussion and research.

Figure 1 illustrates the knowledge map of the discipline distribution structure of the 1276 articles. As the largest circles are related to veterinary science, the majority of the total searches has been performed in the disciplines of Veterinary Science. With the emergence of circles for other keywords over time, the disciplines of dog ownership and dog walking research have gradually become distributed broadly, from the veterinary disciplines focusing on pet dogs to people-centered social sciences, the environment and ecology, health, and other fields.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is animals-12-02251-g001.jpg

Disciplinary distribution structure of the research (one-year time slices with older data in “cooler” colors and newer data in “warmer” colors).

The keyword time zone map (Figure 2) shows the distribution of the keywords, their frequencies, and relationships over time from 1990 to 2022, with the time slice set to every year. Prior to the year 2000, based on the keywords of walking, physical activity, and exercise, we can see that research was focused on the physiology, behavior, and movement. After 2000, the associations between people and pet dogs attracted more attention as research objects. Since 2005, the occurrence of similar keywords began to increase, and dog ownership in the search terms was put forward for the first time. Keywords such as health, human health, and public health have gradually become greater areas of focus. Researchers also began to be concerned about whether dog walking and dog ownership brought other effects besides health, such as risk factors, impacts, and perception. In addition, factors affecting dog walking also attracted research attention, including impacts on the environment, as reflected in the keywords of built environment, park, and other place-based keywords.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is animals-12-02251-g002.jpg

Time zone chart of keywords (each circle in the figure represents a keyword that first appears in the analyzed dataset and is fixed in the first year from the left side. If the keyword appears in a later year, it will be superimposed at the first occurrence).

3.2. Systematic Study Following PRISMA

The Citespace analyses uncovered impacts on dog walking and health from the perspective of physical environments. Most recent research into the canine disciplines has started to switch the focus to related environments, such as dog parks.

The subsequent systematic study was conducted following PRISMA. Figure 3 illustrates the flow of the literature identification, screening, and inclusion, which yields a total of 55 articles of interest, of which 46 were peer-reviewed journal articles and 9 were dissertation/thesis [,,,,,,,,]. Most of these articles were conducted in the global west, especially in the USA, Australia, and Europe. There were 16 articles proposing dog park design and/or management strategies without discussion of their pros and cons, and 13 articles focusing on the benefits and/or conflicts of dog parks. Around half of these articles (26 out of 55) explored both the pros and cons and the strategies of dog parks, but only nine of them formulated design and/or management strategies according to the benefits and conflicts. Dog park benefits, conflicts, and design and management strategies for the 55 articles are summarized in Table 1.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is animals-12-02251-g003.jpg

The flow of systematic study following the phases of PRISMA.

Table 1

Summary of the studies exploring pros and cons and/or the design/management strategies of dog park.

ArticlesBenefitsConflictsDesign StrategiesManagement Strategies
Access/LocationLay outFacilityAmenityLandscape/Aesthetics
Shyan et al., 2003 []dog aggregation and fighting
Forrest & Clair, 2006 []leash law compliance
Allen, 2007 * []promote socialization among dogsinter-dog aggressionlarger sizegarbage cansorder and variety in designanimal control office
benefit physical health of dogsseparate areas for large and small dogsaccessible equipment for the disabledvegetation plantingpenalty policy
enough seatingshade and shelter
Cutt et al., 2008 []park accessdog-specific exercise equipmentsignagemanage conflict between dogs and people
surface optionsgarbage cans
proper fencewater system
Lee et al., 2009 []benefit physical health of dogsdecrease people’s intensity of activitypark accessseparate areas for large and small dogsdog-specific exercise equipmentwater systemvegetation plantinginvest in user education
benefit physical health of peoplesite selection avoiding conflictlarger sizesurface optionsshade and shelterinvest in sponsoring events
promote people’s socializationconnect with community trail systemenough seating
build sense of communitylocations regarding safetylighting
enhance public safetydouble- gated entranceparking
improve quality of lifeaccessible entrance for the disabledsignage
increase properties’ value
Hazel et al., 2010 []play equipment for childrenlightingmore grassself-policing and self-enforcement
dog-specific exercise equipmentgarbage cansvegetation planting
enough seatingshade and shelter
Iojă et al., 2011 []benefit physical health of peopleferal dogsunderstand preferences of visitor categories
benefit psychological health of peoplehygiene
adapt parks to the size of flows
McCormack et al., 2011 []decrease children’s intensity of activitywalkable street
park access
Temple et al., 2011 []benefit physical health of peoplesidewalklinear-based design
Brown, 2012 * []promote socialization among dogssite selection avoiding conflictdog-specific exercise equipmentdouble gate entrancevegetation planting
benefit physical health of dogspark accesssurface optionswater systemshade and shelter
proper fence
enough seating
Throop et al., 2012 * []locations regarding safetyseparate areas for large and small dogsparkingvegetation plantingblacklist
park proximitylightingconcern about environmental impacts
double-gated entranceproper fencegeneral maintenance
water system
enough seating
garbage cans
Matisoff & Noonan, 2012 []clear boundaries of users and resourceself-policing and self-enforcement
Jackson, 2012 []monitorsself-policing and self-enforcement
Urbanik & Morgan, 2013 []build sense of communityonly good for the users
promote human’s behavior to dogstake space away from people
Toohey et al., 2013 []benefit physical health of peopleincrease walkabilityavoid conflict between dogs and other users
build a sense of community
Gómez, 2013 []promote people’s socializationtake space away from peoplesite selection avoiding conflictstrengthen public engagement
benefit physical health of people
enhance public safety
promote socialization among dogs
benefit physical health of dogs
Lamotte, 2013 * []hygienic problem
Paradeis et al., 2013 []hygienic problemsvegetation plantingfertilizer applications
damaged plant communitiesgardens and agriculturetechnologies monitor soil
soil erosion
Richards et al., 2013 []physical health benefits for people
mental health benefits for people
physical health benefits for dogs
mental health benefits for dogs
Graham & Glover, 2014 []contribute to social capital for the communitydurable, low-maintenance seatingmonitordog training and owner’s education events
benefit dog socializationlightingstrengthen public engagement
garbage binsmanaging dog waste
Gómez et al., 2014 * []promote socialization among dogs
benefit physical health of dogs
promote people’s socialization
provide a safe place for dog to play off-leash
Gaunet et al., 2014 []dog regulations
Lowe et al., 2014 []dog fecespath morphologygarbage binseducate dog walkers about dog foul
Instone & Sweeney, 2014 []dog waste
Toohey & Rock, 2015 []promote socialization among dogsdegradation and conflict in parksstrengthen public engagement
promote people’s socializationhygienic problemface the conflicts
vibrancy in the neighborhoodsdogs are out of control
benefit physical health of dogsincompatible uses
benefit physical health of peopleneighborhood problems
Leung et al., 2015 []monitors
McCormack et al., 2016a []decrease children’s intensity of activitypark accessdog-specific exercise equipmentgarbage canspolicies and programming regarding safety
Evenson et al., 2016 []promote people’s socializationlimit physical activitylarger sizesurfacevegetation planting
build a sense of community
improve quality of urban environment
McCormack et al., 2016b []increase walkabilityaesthetical design
vegetation planting
Rock et al., 2016 []hygienic problemspolicy focusing on dog-fouling
dogs are out of control
Engelberg et al., 2016 []increase walkabilityaesthetical design
Burgess-Cady, 2016 * []promote people’s socializationcause degradation and conflict
benefit physical health of peoplehygienic problems
promote socialization among dogsdogs are out of control
benefit physical health of dogs
Booth, 2017 []damage plant communitiesstrengthen public engagement
soil erosion
impacts on wildlife
incompatible uses
Christian et al., 2017 []strengthen street connectivitysidewalkssignagenatural reservesleashing and access policies
park accessdog waste bags and trash binsenforcement to preserve wildlife
increase walkabilitysafety amenitiespolicies and programming on dog waste
self-policing and self-enforcement
less restrictions in public places
balance needs of dog owners and non-dog owners
Christian et al., 2018 []promote people’s socialization
benefit physical health of people
enhance public safety
promote socialization among dogs
benefit physical health of dogs
Howse et al., 2018 []promote socialization among dogs
benefit physical health of dogs
Romo, 2018 * []hygienic problemsgarbage cans
White et al., 2018 []benefit physical health of people
promote people’s socialization
Gómez et al., 2018 []increase sense of communitystrengthen public engagement
promote social cohesionpolicies and programming on safety issues
increase neighborhood safetypolicies and programming on dog waste
promote people’s socialization
Fletcher et al., 2018 []promote people’s socializationlack of regulations about dogs
Veitch et al., 2019 []benefit physical health of peopledecrease children’s intensity of activity
Kresnye et al., 2019 []signage
Gómez & Malega, 2020 []benefit physical health of dogspark proximity
promote socialization among dogs
promote people’s socialization
Vincent, 2019 []build social capital
benefit individuals’ health across the life span
strengthen community engagement
Middle, 2020 []promote people’s socializationdecrease people’s intensity of activitylocated in under-utilized parklandlager sizemonitorvegetation planting
enhance public safetydog parks dominant by some groupsincrease walkability
Allen et al., 2020 []hygienic problemsignage
Koohsari et al., 2020 []promote people’s socializationstreet connectivitysidewalksenough seating
benefit physical health of peopledog-specific exercise equipment
Holderness-Roddam, 2020 []enhance public safetyhygienic problemintegrate dog parks into existing parksseparate areas for large and small dogssurface optionsproper fencesuitable grass varietiestime-share in unfenced area with other park users
promote socialization among dogsdogs are out of controlpark accessdog-specific exercise equipmentsignagevegetation plantingpolicies and programming on safety
benefit physical health of dogsconnect with community trail systemlarger sizeenough seatingshade and shelter
improve quality of urban environmentlocate at least 150 ft from the residencegarbage cansminimize environment impacts
promote people’s socializationaccessible entrance for the disabledwater system
benefit physical health of peopledouble-gated entrancetoilet
Shealy, 2021 * []increase walkabilitysurfacesignageesthetic green space
garbage cansvegetation planting
Westgarth et al., 2021 []promote socialization among dogslocations regarding safetyequipment for the disabledavoid repetition scenery
benefit physical health of dogsincrease walkabilityparking
enough seating
garbage cans
Włodarczyk, 2021 []hygienic problem
noise problem
LaPointe, 2021 * []attach strong emotion by dog walkersintegrate dog park into existing parksgarbage cansmonitorsminimize environment impact
strengthen public engagement
Ebani et al., 2021 []hygienic problemperiodical examinations
Scruggs et al., 2021 []motivate dog owners to pick up dog fouls
balance needs of pet owners and non-dog owners
Arnberger et al., 2022 []site selection avoiding conflictlarger sizestrengthen public engagement

* Academic dissertation/thesis.

As some studies addressed multiple aspects, including benefits, conflicts, or design and management strategies of dog parks (Table 1), we synthesized the information in the following figures (Figure 4Figure 5Figure 6 and Figure 7) according to their frequencies in the identified studies.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is animals-12-02251-g004.jpg

Count of studies identifying the benefits of dog parks.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is animals-12-02251-g005.jpg

Count of studies identifying the conflicts occurring in dog parks.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is animals-12-02251-g006.jpg

Count of studies summarizing the design strategies for dog park.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is animals-12-02251-g007.jpg

Count of strategies in studies summarizing the management strategies for dog parks.

In Figure 4, the most reported benefits brought by dog parks were identified as improving the physical and social health of dogs and their owners. Some other benefits often mentioned by scholars included building a sense of community and enhancing social cohesion, public safety, and community engagement. Individual scholars indicated that the existence of dog parks in the community can increase property values [], bring vibrancy to the community [], and enhance emotional attachment of dog walkers []. Additional benefits of dog parks, including mental/psychological health benefits, are related to social benefits, such as promoting human socialization and the enhancement of social cohesion and community engagement.

Hygiene problems related to the dog waste is a serious issue in dog parks, as identified by most studies. Figure 5 also showed that incompatible uses between dog owners and non-dog owners, aggressive dogss, and the lack of regulation of dogs received additional attention among large numbers of researchers. While physical health benefits are the most identified dog park benefits for both park visitors and canines, several studies indicated that dog park visitors may have a limited intensity of physical activity. In addition to the negative impacts on the environments indicated by more than one study, such as damage plant community and soil degradation and erosion, Booth [] was also concerned that the presence of off-leash dogs may influence wildlife in parks.

Design strategies for dog parks include the consideration of their location, size, adjacent park facilities, amenities, and esthetics (Figure 6). Improvements in accessibility and amenities received the most attention among the proposed design strategies, such as increasing park access and the provision of garbage bins for dog waste. Several studies indicated the placement of signage for direction, adequate seating for dog owners, and monitoring programs or equipment for governing off-leash areas. Numerous studies stated that vegetation and plantings also need to be carefully considered in dog parks. Some other design strategies, such as linear-based path design [], safety amenities, and natural reserves [], although only discussed by individual studies, were consistent with the common strategies for dealing with identified conflicts, including lack of physical activity and hygienic issues.

In Figure 7, most research has suggested that strengthening public engagement in the decision-making process for dog park construction/management can address the conflicts between canines and humans, as well as between dog owners and non-dog owning park users. A self-enforcement policy that motivates dog-walkers to manage their dog’s waste is important in the off-leash areas. Numerous researchers have raised the issue of environmental impacts caused by the canines, and this should be core to the management process of dog parks. Some other management strategies covered the necessity of having animal control officer presence, policies and penalties for noncompliance [], and even a banned list of chronic offenders [] in dog parks. To deal with the conflicts in dog parks, the strategies of periodic monitoring of soil conditions [] and share of time in unfenced areas with other park users [] were also raised.

4. Discussion

The results from Citespace analyses indicated that growing research focus has been directed on dog ownership, dog walking, and the physical environment since 2016. After the COVID-19 outbreak, growing numbers of researchers have emphasized the physical and mental health benefits brought by dog ownership and dog walking. Additionally, the ways to promote dog-related activities in urban settings have become a significant topic. In this context, dog parks or off-leash areas became important research foci, consistent with the direction of the body of research and illustrating their future research potential.

As the outcomes in the Results section clearly illustrate the identified benefits, conflicts, and design/management strategies of dog parks (research questions a, b, c, d), the research question e: How is it possible to endorse the benefits and avoid the conflicts while determining the design and management strategies of dog parks still remains to be resolved. To explore the research question, we discussed the results of the systematic study from the perspectives of the following two questions.

4.1. Do the Existing Design/Management Strategies Address the Benefits and Conflicts in Dog Parks?

According to the results of the PRISMA, although most of the related studies explored both the pros and cons of dog parks and their design/management strategies, 9 out of 26 studies [,,,,,,,] developed strategies in response to the pros and cons of dog parks. Sixty-seven percent of these studies focused on hygiene issues, including dog waste, and solutions in dog parks [,,,,,]. Other studies, while discussing the pros and cons of dog parks and the associated importance of considering the benefits and conflicts for the construction and management of a dog park, did not explicitly discuss design and/or management strategies in terms of the benefits and conflicts brought by dog parks. For example, Lee et al. [] investigated park user patterns, activities, and their satisfaction and perceptions to provide design guidelines for dog parks. Their findings aligned with the following research that dog parks contributed to the social and physical health of both park users and their dogs, and expanded the knowledge that the park design should be based on the evaluation of aspects of dog parks []. However, they overlooked the established connection between aspects of dog parks, especially the identified health benefits and limitations, and the design guidelines of an effective dog park. Both experimental and systematic studies started to propose design and management strategies for effective dog parks for enhancing their benefits while mitigating their risks [,,]. Prior to 2020, a dog park design and management guideline considering both the advantages and disadvantages was generated based on the literature []. This design guideline was developed based on existing literature, which did not robustly examine the pros and cons aspects of dog parks. Additionally, the strategies have not clearly indicated which benefits they can bring and/or which issues they can mitigate, so the effectiveness of the design strategies is questionable. Existing research has developed design/management strategies for dog parks that address their benefits and conflicts, but how these strategies can effectively enhance these benefits and avoid the conflicts remains a significant research question to be explored.

4.2. How Can the Design/Management Strategies Endorse the Benefits and Avoid the Conflicts of Dog Parks?

Dog parks can bring users various benefits, but their improper design or management can lead to conflicts between dogs, their owners, other park users, and the physical environment. Based on the findings of the systematic study, we summarized the design and management strategies according to the frequency and relevance of the identified benefits, conflicts, and existing strategies (Table 2 and Table 3).

Table 2

Targeted benefits and their corresponding design and management strategies for dog parks.

Targeted BenefitsCorresponding Design StrategiesCorresponding Management Strategies
physical health benefitsincrease walkability, park access and proximity;
larger size of dog park;
dog-specific exercise equipment;
linear-based design; sidewalk
investing in events
social benefitsshade and shelter;
sufficient seating
investing in events
safety enhancementseparate areas for large and small dogs; monitor; lighting; proper fence;
double-gated entrances;
signage for direction
strengthen public engagement;
leash law compliance;
self-policing and self-enforcement;policies and programming regarding safety
quality of life improvement
garbage cans; enhance water system; more grass (suitable grass varieties); order and variety in designconcern about environmental impacts;
self-policing and self-enforcement; managing dog waste

Table 3

Targeted conflicts and their corresponding design and management strategies for dog parks.

Targeted ConflictsCorresponding Design StrategiesCorresponding Management Strategies
hygienic problem/dog fouling and fecesgarbage cans and dog waste bags;
enhance water system;
signage; toilet; monitor
concern about environmental impacts; self-policing and self-enforcement; strengthen public engagement;
managing dog waste;
penalty policy; blacklist
dog aggregation/dogs are out of controlseparate areas for large and small dogs; monitor; lighting; proper fence; double-gated entrances;strengthen public engagement; investing in user education and dog training;
self-policing and self-enforcement;
animal control office;
leash law compliance; blacklist
incompatible uses/dog parks dominant by some groupssite selection avoiding conflict (considering safety);
locate at least 150 ft from the residence; clear boundaries for different users; signage; order in park design;
strengthen public engagement;
balance needs of dog owners and non-dog owners; leash law compliance;
time-share in unfenced area with other park user; self-policing and self-enforcement; blacklist
soil erosion/damaged planting and wildlifemore grass and suitable grass varieties; natural reservesstrengthen public engagement;
periodical soil examination;
fertilizer applications
Decrease people’s intensity of activityincrease walkability, park access and proximity; larger size of dog park;
dog-specific exercise equipment; linear-based design; sidewalk
investment in events

The identified articles inferred that a linear-based design could support both people and canine walking activities [], which was aligned with the experimental evidence []. Significant numbers of the selected studies concluded that increased dog park access and proximity can encourage physical activities among dogs and their owners [,,,,,,,,], because residents of local communities tended to walk to nearby dog parks more frequently. McCormack et al. [] further discussed that a well-maintained dog park with clear signage could improve dog walking that contributes to physical health benefits. Recent statistical analysis indicated durable seating areas and adequate shade and shelter could facilitate social interaction among park users []. This reinforces the design strategies for investing in seating and shade trees to enhance social benefits in dog parks []. Physical and social health benefits among park visitors and their dogs are the most reported benefits brought by dog parks, but limited management strategies were developed for maximizing these benefits. It has been demonstrated that having events at parks, such as sports competitions, is correlated with physical activating and gathering of people [], so we suggested that investing in events can encourage gathering visitors and dogs to engage in and physical and social activities in dog parks. Specific evidence between the research correlations in the dog park setting is anticipated to provide opportunities for future research.

As illustrated in Table 3, a greater number of design and management strategies were plotted to address conflicts and issues occurring in dog parks, when compared to enhancing their benefits. Hygienic issues in dog parks received the most attention from scholars. Dog feces, soil erosion, and damage to vegetation have received notable attention []. More concerning, health risks from disease transmission between dogs or from dogs to humans may occur without the proper design and management of gathering areas []. Regular monitoring programs and equipment, such as the placement of onsite surveillance cameras, can continuously supervise the condition of dog parks, including damage to vegetation and soil. Some scholars designed monitoring protocols with public engagement and mobile technology to examine hygiene issues and aggressive dogss [,]. However, surveillance programs should be carefully considered, as they can create issues of privacy. In addition to the park amenities, such as garbage cans, waste bags, and signage reminding and providing direction for waste disposal, the enhancement of the water system of a dog park is a key strategy. To minimize the transmission of zoonotic diseases, the location of dog parks should avoid proximity to natural water resources such as rivers and lakes [], and Middle [] suggested that seasonal drainage basin areas could be locations of choice for dog parks. Most importantly, management strategies corresponding to individuals and dogs can mitigate the spread of bacteria. The education of dog owners about environmental impacts to enhance self-enforcement of park users is the most effective strategy for decreasing the accumulation of dog waste and related hygienic issues in dog parks. This may be more critical than the waste-management amenities and strategies. In extreme cases, penalties and enforcement of a banned list of frequent offenders may also be necessary to mitigate these issues in dog parks.

Conflicts between park visitors with and without dogs for extended periods are especially prevalent in dog-gathering areas. Dogs that suffer from behavioral issues may trigger dog fights and aggregation-based dog conflicts, but also impact incompatibility between dog walkers and other park users. It is important for a well-designed and managed dog park to mitigate these issues. Among the listed strategies in Table 3, to mitigate conflicts, a logical park design with clear boundaries and proper fencing will separate dogs of different sizes and visitors with different intentions. Significant research including the most recent studies, indicates strengthening public engagement in the decision-making process is an effective solution to many controversaries [,,,,,,]. Most existing issues in dog parks ultimately result from conflicts between different dogs, dog owners and non-dog owners, and impacts of ordinary dog park usage on environmental resources, such as the vegetation, soil, and other park uses. To relieve these conflicts, regular communication and cooperation between constituents, the local government, and stakeholders, including those who advocate for and oppose dog parks, are important in the public involvement process. The selection of dog park sites, design process, and daily management can all be enhanced through representation of different constituents. For example, the involvement of dog park activists and other residents in the process of determining a dog park’s location can resolve issues by taking into consideration the concerns of hygienic problem, noise and odors caused by the placement of a dog park from the beginning. Researchers can also be a vital part in the decision-making process by providing professional alternatives for relieving conflicts [,]. Additionally, an efficient negotiation mechanism will allow various members to mitigate dog park issues during the decision-making process. We concur with Toohey and Rock [] that many problems created by the existence of dog parks should not be concealed but openly discussed. Various approaches, such as public meetings, anonymous emails, and online polls can work during the processes of the creation and use of a local dog park [,]. Routine evaluation of dog parks is also recommended for strengthening public engagement, enhancing their benefits, and alleviating their conflicts.

Although we provided the design and management strategies and distinguished the vital role researchers play in response to the identified benefits and conflicts of dog parks, some dilemmas in the existing research still need to be addressed, such as the lack of experimental evidence supporting specific aspects of dog parks and the strategies applied.

Growing numbers of studies have quantitatively explored associations between the features of built environment and dog-walking in Australia, Canada, and the USA. However, there is a dearth of experimental evidence about how the features/design of dog parks may influence park-based activities, such as dog walking. Arguments are passionate on both sides and debate has remained subjective and unresolved because experimental evidence of the ecological impacts of dog walking has been lacking. Holderness-Roddam [] provided guidance for designing, planning, and managing dog parks primarily based on the literature. Some recent studies have begun to place focus on physical benefits and/or social components of dog parks. For example, Middle [] proposed that increasing the accessibility of dog parks for neighborhood walking could bring a higher proportion of social interactions. Kresnye [] designed a cooperative system addressing the physical and social experience of canines in dog parks. However, these strategies are primarily created through qualitative analysis, which not only lacks the establishment of reliability of rationale, but also challenges the generalizability of knowledge and quantitative comparison, such as a meta-analysis. Experimental evidence should be provided in future studies for the development of reliable design and management strategies for the progress of dog park development.

Physical health benefits among dogs and their owners going to dog parks are the most reported benefits in the systematic study. However, a national survey disclosed that dog walking was not sufficiently intensive so as to count as moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) []. Evenson et al. [] discovered people visiting a dog park tended to engage in sedentary activities, such as standing and watching dogs play, a finding supported by other two studies [,]. Recent studies have concluded that dog park users are less likely to engage in physical activities than other urban park users, which is contradictory to the previous self-reported results and would thus warrant further, more detailed investigation []. As for the differences between perceived physical benefits and the limitations on levels of physical activities, it is important for dog park design and management to support visitors who engage in various park-based physical activities. This leads to some suggestion that an effective dog park should increase general walkability and be accessible for potential dog walking residents. Consideration of the walkable surface with the degradation of grass in larger dog parks was proposed by Evenson et al. [] to increase the levels of physical activity for dog park users. Park proximity and accessibility to a dog park is central to its health benefits, specifically through facilitating dog walking behaviors, which affirms previous findings by McCormack et al. [] and Lee et al. []. Improving physical activity through dog walking is a promising public health strategy to improve health that could feasibly reach those who are sedentary []. Improving the routes to and from dog parks, such that owners can safely walk or jog with their dogs to and from the park, ultimately benefit people and canine physical health. Dog companionship provides social support for the owners to join group activities, and dog parks offer a destination for owners to go and join in activities with their dogs. In addition to dog walking, which was challenged as a sufficient MVPA, we advocate for the placement of exercise facilities, including human–canine specific exercise equipment, to facilitate dog owners to engage in intense MVPA with their dogs other than just walking. The organization of frequent activities and competitions can motivate the MVPA between dog owners and the dogs, which also contribute to the community engagement and social cohesion.

While some researchers elicited that the existence of dog parks in a community could improve the quality of life and the environment [,,], and increase the property value [], the controversies brought by off-leash areas may detract from the benefits of the dog park for a community. For such reasons, it is often controversial for municipal governments to plan for dog parks. The literature suggests to strengthen the connection to community-based dialogues for dog park planning and management. Graham and Glover [] stated the social structure of dog park committees should be governed and managed by disadvantaged groups to increase the stewardship and communication with the community. Not only by strengthening the public engagement, especially the researchers’ involvement in the municipal governments’ decision-making process, but by attaching importance to the endogenous conflicts and public controversies caused by the canines as well, significant opportunities can be achieved to bring about positive changes to the relationships between urban residents and their canines [].

5. Conclusions

Although dog ownership and dog walking bring various physical and social benefits, especially since the pandemic, dog parks, on one hand strengthen the benefits for people and their dogs; on the other hand, they cause contentious community issues because of the allowance and gathering of off-leash dogs in a public space. Hygienic issues and conflicts between dogs, park visitors with and without dogs are the most identified issues occurring in dog parks. Many people value the physical and social benefits of dog parks, but the objectively measured intensity of physical activity among dog park users is often lower than other park users.

Recent studies have started to develop design and management strategies for dog parks that address the benefits and conflicts. Our study advances these findings to specifically maximize the benefits and minimize drawbacks of off-leash areas. A number of corresponding strategies for the benefits and/or issues of dog parks are formulated based on the experimental evidence for urban parks, rather than specifically for a dog park setting. As there is a lack of empirical research exploring the associations between the design/management strategies and the benefits and conflicts of dog parks, there are research opportunities for experimental studies and greater sample sizes to fill the research gaps. Well-designed strategies for both the planning and management processes of dog parks can enhance the experience of dogs and their owners, while avoiding some of the conflicts that arise during visits to dog parks. The inevitable issues should be confronted and discussed through the decision-making process, from the placement and planning of a dog park to the daily management of the off-leash areas. This study contributes to an integrated understanding and the sustainable coexistence of canines, dog owners, and those human park users who do not own dogs in built environments through appropriate design and management strategies.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by National Key R&D Program of China, grant number: 2019YFD1100404; Jiangsu Social Science Institutes, grant number: 2022SJYB0127 and College Students’ Innovative Entrepreneurial Training, grant number: 202210298047Z.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.C.; methodology: S.C. and Z.W.; software: Z.W.; validation: O.R.S.; formal analysis: S.C.; investigation: Z.W.; resources: Z.W. and S.C.; data curation: S.C.; writing—original draft preparation: S.C. and Z.W.; writing—review and editing: S.C. and O.R.S.; visualization: S.C. and Z.W.; supervision: H.W.; project administration: H.W.; funding acquisition: H.W. and S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



1. Koohsari M.J., Nakaya T., McCormack G.R., Shibata A., Ishii K., Yasunaga A., Liao Y., Oka K. Dog-Walking in Dense Compact Areas: The Role of Neighbourhood Built Environment. Health Place. 2020;61:102242. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102242. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
2. Christian H.E., Westgarth C., Bauman A., Richards E.A., Rhodes R.E., Evenson K.R., Mayer J.A., Thorpe R.J., Jr. Dog Ownership and Physical Activity: A Review of the Evidence. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2013;10:750–759. doi: 10.1123/jpah.10.5.750. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
3. Temple V., Rhodes R., Wharf Higgins J. Unleashing Physical Activity: An Observational Study of Park Use, Dog Walking, and Physical Activity. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2011;8:766–774. doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.6.766. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
4. Carrier L.O., Cyr A., Anderson R.E., Walsh C.J. Exploring the Dog Park: Relationships between Social Behaviours, Personality and Cortisol in Companion Dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013;146:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.04.002. [CrossRef[]
5. Herzog H. The Impact of Pets on Human Health and Psychological Well-Being: Fact, Fiction, or Hypothesis? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2011;20:236–239. doi: 10.1177/0963721411415220. [CrossRef[]
6. Levine G.N., Allen K., Braun L.T., Christian H.E., Friedmann E., Taubert K.A., Thomas S.A., Wells D.L., Lange R.A. Pet Ownership and Cardiovascular Risk: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127:2353–2363. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31829201e1. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
7. Kramer C.K., Mehmood S., Suen R.S. Dog Ownership and Survival: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes. 2019;12:e005554. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005554. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
8. Bussolari C., Currin-McCulloch J., Packman W., Kogan L., Erdman P. “I Couldn’t Have Asked for a Better Quarantine Partner!”: Experiences with Companion Dogs During COVID-19. Animals. 2021;11:330. doi: 10.3390/ani11020330. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
9. Holland K.E., Owczarczak-Garstecka S.C., Anderson K.L., Casey R.A., Christley R.M., Harris L., McMillan K.M., Mead R., Murray J.K., Samet L., et al. “More Attention Than Usual”: A Thematic Analysis of Dog Ownership Experiences in the Uk during the First COVID-19 Lockdown. Animals. 2021;11:240. doi: 10.3390/ani11010240. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
10. Martin F., Bachert K.E., Snow L., Tu H.W., Belahbib J., Lyn S.A. Depression, Anxiety, and Happiness in Dog Owners and Potential Dog Owners during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0260676. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260676. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
11. Shoesmith E., Shahab L., Kale D., Mills D.S., Reeve C., Toner P., Santos de Assis L., Ratschen E. The Influence of Human-Animal Interactions on Mental and Physical Health during the First COVID-19 Lockdown Phase in the U.K.: A Qualitative Exploration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18:976. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18030976. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
12. Vučinić M., Vučićević M., Nenadović K. The COVID-19 Pandemic Affects Owners Walking with Their Dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 2022;48:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2021.10.009. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
13. Engelberg J.K., Carlson J.A., Conway T.L., Cain K.L., Saelens B.E., Glanz K., Frank L.D., Sallis J.F. Dog Walking among Adolescents: Correlates and Contribution to Physical Activity. Prev. Med. 2016;82:65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.11.011. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
14. Salmon J., Timperio A., Chu B., Veitch J. Dog Ownership, Dog Walking, and Children’s and Parents’ Physical Activity. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 2010;81:264–271. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2010.10599674. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
15. Wu Y.T., Luben R., Jones A. Dog Ownership Supports the Maintenance of Physical Activity during Poor Weather in Older English Adults: Cross-Sectional Results from the Epic Norfolk Cohort. J. Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71:905–911. doi: 10.1136/jech-2017-208987. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
16. Lane D.R., McNicholas J., Collis G.M. Dogs for the Disabled: Benefits to Recipients and Welfare of the Dog. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;59:49–60. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00120-8. [CrossRef[]
17. McNicholas J., Gilbey A., Rennie A., Ahmedzai S., Dono J.A., Ormerod E. Pet Ownership and Human Health: A Brief Review of Evidence and Issues. BMJ. 2005;331:1252–1254. doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1252. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
18. Gaunet F., Pari-Perrin E., Bernardin G. Description of Dogs and Owners in Outdoor Built-up Areas and Their More-Than-Human Issues. Environ. Manag. 2014;54:383–401. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
19. Iojă C.I., Rozylowicz L., Pătroescu M., Niţă M.R., Vânau G.O. Dog Walkers’ vs. Other Park Visitors’ Perceptions: The Importance of Planning Sustainable Urban Parks in Bucharest, Romania. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011;103:74–82. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.06.002. [CrossRef[]
20. White M.P., Elliott L.R., Wheeler B.W., Fleming L.E. Neighbourhood Greenspace Is Related to Physical Activity in England, but Only for Dog Owners. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018;174:18–23. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.004. [CrossRef[]
21. Holderness-Roddam B. Dog Park Design, Planning and Management. Aust. Plan. 2020;56:48–57. doi: 10.1080/07293682.2020.1739092. [CrossRef[]
22. 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009;92:314–324. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.015. [CrossRef[]
23. Rahim T., Barrios P.R., McKee G., McLaws M., Kosatsky T. Public Health Considerations Associated with the Location and Operation of Off-Leash Dog Parks. J. Community Health. 2018;43:433–440. doi: 10.1007/s10900-017-0428-2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
24. Urbanik J., Morgan M. A Tale of Tails: The Place of Dog Parks in the Urban Imaginary. Geoforum. 2013;44:292–302. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.08.001. [CrossRef[]
25. Geng D.C., Innes J., Wu W., Wang G. Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on Urban Park Visitation: A Global Analysis. J. For. Res. (Harbin) 2021;32:553–567. doi: 10.1007/s11676-020-01249-w. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
26. Middle I. Between a Dog and a Green Space: Applying Ecosystem Services Theory to Explore the Human Benefits of Off-the-Leash Dog Parks. Landsc. Res. 2020;45:81–94. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2019.1580353. [CrossRef[]
27. Toohey A.M., Rock M.J. 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;8:46. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-46. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
28. Westgarth C., Christley R.M., Christian H.E. 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. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-83. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
29. Gómez E. Dog Parks: Benefits, Conflicts, and Suggestions. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2013;31:79–91. []
30. McCormack G.R., Rock M., Sandalack B., Uribe F.A. Access to Off-Leash Parks, Street Pattern and Dog Walking among Adults. Public Health. 2011;125:540–546. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2011.04.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
31. Veitch J., Christian H., Carver A., Salmon J. Physical Activity Benefits from Taking Your Dog to the Park. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019;185:173–179. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.013. [CrossRef[]
32. Graham T.M., Glover T.D. On the Fence: Dog Parks in the (Un)Leashing of Community and Social Capital. Leis. Sci. 2014;36:217–234. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2014.888020. [CrossRef[]
33. Gómez E., Malega R. Dog Park Use: Perceived Benefits, Park Proximity, and Individual and Neighborhood Effects. J. Leis. Res. 2020;51:287–307. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2019.1680263. [CrossRef[]
34. Matisoff D., Noonan D. Managing Contested Greenspace: Neighborhood Commons and the Rise of Dog Parks. Int. J. Commons. 2012;6:28–51. doi: 10.18352/ijc.299. [CrossRef[]
35. Nemiroff L., Patterson J. Design, Testing and Implementation of a Large-Scale Urban Dog Waste Composting Program. Compost Sci. Util. 2007;15:237–242. doi: 10.1080/1065657X.2007.10702339. [CrossRef[]
36. Allen L. Master’s Thesis. University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 2007. Dog Parks: Benefits and Liabilities. []
37. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., PRISMA Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The Prisma Statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009;151:264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
38. Rashid W., Shi J., Rahim I.u., Sultan H., Dong S., Ahmad L. Research Trends and Management Options in Human-Snow Leopard Conflict. Biol. Conserv. 2020;242:108413. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108413. [CrossRef[]
39. Brown L.M. Master’s Thesis. Ball State University; Muncie, IN, USA: 2012. Landscape Barkitecture: Guidelines for Behaviorally, Mentally and Physically Responsive Dog Parks. []
40. Burgess-Cady L.J. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Oklahoma; Norman, OK, USA: 2016. Dog Parks and Their Users: A Study of Four Dog Parks in the Greater Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area. []
41. Gómez E., Hunting J. A Qualitative Assessment of Virginia Beach Dog Park Users. [(accessed on 19 August 2022)]. Available online:
42. Lamotte K.E. Assessing the Validity of Preconceptions about Dog Parks: Cleanliness and Disease Transmission. [(accessed on 19 August 2022)]. Available online:
43. LaPointe D. Ph.D. Thesis. Royal Roads University; Victoria, BC, Canada: 2021. “Golden Ears. Everybody and Their Dog Goes There”: An Investigation of Park User Perceptions of Dogs in Golden Ears Provincial Park. []
44. Romo A.B. Master’s Thesis. The Pennsylvania State University; State College, PA, USA: 2018. Dog Owners’ Perceptions and Behaviors Related to the Disposal of Pet Waste in City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. []
45. Shealy E.C. Ph.D. Thesis. Virginia Tech University; Blacksburg, VA, USA: 2021. Designing Outdoor Spaces to Support Older Adult Dog Walkers: A Multi-Method Approach to Identify and Prioritize Features in the Built Environment. []
46. Throop D.M., Meehan S.K., Jarobski T.A. Should Nantucket Pursue the Establishment of a Fenced-In Dog Park. [(accessed on 19 August 2022)]. Available online:
47. Shyan M.R., Fortune K.A., King C. “Bark Parks”—A Study on Interdog Aggression in a Limited-Control Environment. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2003;6:25–32. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0601_02. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
48. Forrest A., St. Clair C.C. Effects of Dog Leash Laws and Habitat Type on Avian and Small Mammal Communities in Urban Parks. Urban Ecosyst. 2006;9:51–66. doi: 10.1007/s11252-006-7903-3. [CrossRef[]
49. Cutt H.E., Giles-Corti B., Wood L.J., Knuiman M.W., Burke V. Barriers and Motivators for Owners Walking Their Dog: Results from Qualitative Research. Health Promot. J. Austr. 2008;19:118–124. doi: 10.1071/HE08118. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
50. Hazel S., Van Hout P., Luxton M.B. How Are Fenced Dog Parks Used in Adelaide. [(accessed on 19 August 2022)]. Available online:
51. Jackson P. Situated Activities in a Dog Park: Identity and Conflict in Human-Animal Space. Soc. Anim. 2012;20:254–272. doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341237. [CrossRef[]
52. Toohey A.M., McCormack G.R., Doyle-Baker P.K., Adams C.L., Rock M.J. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.03.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
53. Paradeis B., Lovas S., Aipperspach A., Kazmierczak A., Boche M., He Y., Corrigan P., Chambers K., Yang G., Norland J. Dog-Park Soils: Concentration and Distribution of Urine-Borne Constituents. Urban Ecosyst. 2013;16:351–365. doi: 10.1007/s11252-012-0264-1. [CrossRef[]
54. Richards E.A., McDonough M.H., Edwards N.E., Lyle R.M., Troped P.J. Psychosocial and Environmental Factors Associated with Dog-Walking. Int. J. Health Promot. 2013;51:198–211. doi: 10.1080/14635240.2013.802546. [CrossRef[]
55. Lowe C.N., Williams K.S., Jenkinson S., Toogood M. Environmental and Social Impacts of Domestic Dog Waste in the Uk: Investigating Barriers to Behavioural Change in Dog Walkers. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manag. 2014;13:331–347. doi: 10.1504/IJEWM.2014.060452. [CrossRef[]
56. Instone L., Sweeney J. Dog Waste, Wasted Dogs: The Contribution of Human–Dog Relations to the Political Ecology of Australian Urban Space. Geogr. Res.-Aust. 2014;52:355–364. doi: 10.1111/1745-5871.12059. [CrossRef[]
57. Toohey A.M., Rock M.J. Newspaper Portrayals, Local Policies, and Dog-Supportive Public Space: Who’s Wagging Whom? Anthrozoos. 2015;28:549–567. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1052285. [CrossRef[]
58. Leung Y.F., Walden-Schreiner C., Conlon K., Miller A.B. A Simple Method for Monitoring Dog Leash Compliance Behavior in Parks and Natural Areas. J. Outdoor Rec. Tour. 2015;9:11–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2015.03.001. [CrossRef[]
59. McCormack G.R., Graham T.M., Christian H., Toohey A.M., Rock M.J. Supportive Neighbourhood Built Characteristics and Dog-Walking in Canadian Adults. Can. J. Public Health. 2016;107:e245–e250. doi: 10.17269/CJPH.107.5360. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
60. Evenson K.R., Shay E., Williamson S., Cohen D.A. Use of Dog Parks and the Contribution to Physical Activity for Their Owners. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 2016;87:165–173. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2016.1143909. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
61. McCormack G.R., Graham T.M., Swanson K., Massolo A., Rock M.J. Changes in Visitor Profiles and Activity Patterns Following Dog Supportive Modifications to Parks: A Natural Experiment on the Health Impact of an Urban Policy. SSM-Popul. Heal. 2016;2:237–243. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.03.002. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
62. Rock M.J., Graham T.M., Massolo A., McCormack G.R. Dog-Walking, Dog-Fouling and Leashing Policies in Urban Parks: Insights from a Natural Experiment Designed as a Longitudinal Multiple-Case Study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016;153:40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.018. [CrossRef[]
63. Booth A.L. Dog Eat Dog World: Public Consultation and Planning on Contested Landscapes, a Case Study of Dog Parks and Municipal Government. Community Dev. J. 2017;52:337–353. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsw010. [CrossRef[]
64. Christian H.E., McCormack G.R., Evenson K.R., Maitland C. Walking. Emerald Publishing Limited; Bradford, UK: 2017. Dog Walking. []
65. Christian H., Bauman A., Epping J.N., Levine G.N., McCormack G., Rhodes R.E., Richards E., Rock M., Westgarth C. Encouraging Dog Walking for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2018;12:233–243. doi: 10.1177/1559827616643686. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
66. Howse M.S., Anderson R.E., Walsh C.J. Social Behaviour of Domestic Dogs (Canis Familiaris) in a Public Off-Leash Dog Park. Behav. Processes. 2018;157:691–701. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2018.03.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
67. Gómez E., Baur J.W.R., Malega R. Dog Park Users: An Examination of Perceived Social Capital and Perceived Neighborhood Social Cohesion. J. Urban Aff. 2018;40:349–369. doi: 10.1080/07352166.2017.1343634. [CrossRef[]
68. Fletcher T., Platt L. (Just) a Walk with the Dog? Animal Geographies and Negotiating Walking Spaces. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2018;19:211–229. doi: 10.1080/14649365.2016.1274047. [CrossRef[]
69. Kresnye K.C., Theisz A.A., Trester L., Shih P.C. Barks & Rec: A Dog Park Socio-Technical System; Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction; Haifa, Israel. 12–14 November 2019; p. 12. []
70. Vincent A. Dog Parks as an Institutional Resource for Social Capital in the Urban Neighborhood. Soc. Anim. 2019;29:517–538. doi: 10.1163/15685306-00001598. [CrossRef[]
71. Allen J.A., Setl H., Kotze J. Dog Urine Has Acute Impacts on Soil Chemistry in Urban Greenspaces. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020;8:615979. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.615979. [CrossRef[]
72. Westgarth C., Christley R.M., Marvin G., Perkins E. Functional and Recreational Dog Walking Practices in the Uk. Health Promot. Int. 2021;36:109–119. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaa051. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
73. Wodarczyk J. “My Dog and I, We Need the Park”: More-Than-Human Agency and the Emergence of Dog Parks in Poland, 2015–2020. Cult. Geogr. 2021;28:495–511. doi: 10.1177/1474474020987249. [CrossRef[]
74. Ebani V.V., Nardoni S., Ciapetti S., Guardone L., Loretti E., Mancianti F. Survey on the Presence of Bacterial, Fungal and Helminthic Agents in Off-Leash Dog Parks Located in Urban Areas in Central-Italy. Animals. 2021;11:1685. doi: 10.3390/ani11061685. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
75. Scruggs C.E., Lozoya S., Rumsey K.N., Bronson K., Chavez P. Voluntary Public Campaigns to Benefit the Environment: Assessing the Effectiveness of the There Is No Poop Fairy Campaign. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2021:0739456X2110203. doi: 10.1177/0739456X211020357. [CrossRef[]
76. Arnberger A., Budruk M., Schneider I.E., Wilhelm Stanis S.A. Predicting Place Attachment among Walkers in the Urban Context: The Role of Dogs, Motivations, Satisfaction, Past Experience and Setting Development. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022;70:127531. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127531. [CrossRef[]
77. Kaczynski A.T., Potwarka L.R., Saelens B.E. Association of Park Size, Distance, and Features with Physical Activity in Neighborhood Parks. Am. J. Public Health. 2008;98:1451–1456. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.129064. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
78. Veitch J., Ball K., Rivera E., Loh V., Deforche B., Best K., Timperio A. What Entices Older Adults to Parks? Identification of Park Features That Encourage Park Visitation, Physical Activity, and Social Interaction. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022;217:104254. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104254. [CrossRef[]
79. Cohen D.A., Marsh T., Williamson S., Derose K.P., Martinez H., Setodji C., McKenzie T.L. Parks and Physical Activity: Why Are Some Parks Used More Than Others? Prev. Med. 2010;50((Suppl. 1)):S9–S12. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.020. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
80. Weston M.A., Fitzsimons J.A., Wescott G., Miller K.K., Ekanayake K.B., Schneider T. Bark in the Park: A Review of Domestic Dogs in Parks. Environ. Manag. 2014;54:373–382. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0311-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
81. Procter T.D., Pearl D.L., Finley R.L., Leonard E.K., Janecko N., Reid-Smith R.J., Weese J.S., Peregrine A.S., Sargeant J.M. A Cross-Sectional Study Examining the Prevalence and Risk Factors for Anti-Microbial-Resistant Generic Escherichia Coli in Domestic Dogs That Frequent Dog Parks in Three Cities in South-Western Ontario, Canada. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014;61:250–259. doi: 10.1111/zph.12064. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
82. Avrasin M. Dog Fight: Dogpark Supporters Are often Pitted against Their Neighbors. Parks Recreat.-West VA. 2008;43:38. []
83. Armstrong T., Bauman A., Davies J., Chair B., Madden R. Physical Activity Patterns of Australian Adults. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; Canberra, Australia: 2000. pp. 63–68. []
84. Floyd M.F., Spengler J.O., Maddock J.E., Gobster P.H., Suau L.J. Park-Based Physical Activity in Diverse Communities of Two U.S. Cities. An Observational Study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008;34:299–305. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]