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?

2.2. 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.

3.2. 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 [36,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. 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.

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 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7) according to their frequencies in the identified studies.

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 [22], bring vibrancy to the community [57], and enhance emotional attachment of dog walkers [43]. 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 [63] 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 [3], safety amenities, and natural reserves [64], 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 [36], and even a banned list of chronic offenders [46] in dog parks. To deal with the conflicts in dog parks, the strategies of periodic monitoring of soil conditions [74] and share of time in unfenced areas with other park users [21] were also raised.

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).

The identified articles inferred that a linear-based design could support both people and canine walking activities [3], which was aligned with the experimental evidence [77]. Significant numbers of the selected studies concluded that increased dog park access and proximity can encourage physical activities among dogs and their owners [21,22,30,33,39,46,49,59,64], because residents of local communities tended to walk to nearby dog parks more frequently. McCormack et al. [30] 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 [78]. This reinforces the design strategies for investing in seating and shade trees to enhance social benefits in dog parks [32]. 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 [79], 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 [53]. 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 [80]. 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 [58,69]. 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 [81], and Middle [26] 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 [29,32,43,57,63,67,76]. 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 [29,57]. 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 [62] 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 [23,82]. 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 [21] 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 [26] proposed that increasing the accessibility of dog parks for neighborhood walking could bring a higher proportion of social interactions. Kresnye [69] 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) [83]. Evenson et al. [60] 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 [22,84]. 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 [26]. 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. [60] 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. [30] and Lee et al. [22]. Improving physical activity through dog walking is a promising public health strategy to improve health that could feasibly reach those who are sedentary [54]. 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 [21,22,60], and increase the property value [22], 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 [32] 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 [57].