In 1995, when we released Public Open Space and Dogs, it was a world first, attracting interest from the professional and lay communities around Australia and in other parts of the globe. Its release followed a year long study into such questions as:

• Why do dogs and their owners need access to public open space?
• What types of open space best meets their needs?
• How do we best integrate dogs and their owners with other park users?
• How are dog owners' needs best incorporated into the planning process?

Essentially, Public Open Space and Dogs recommends a diversity of on- and off-lead areas based on a hierarchy of opportunities that meet the range of dog owners' needs for access to the public realm.

Many Councils around Australia are now either using the study, or intend using it in the future. Its main value seems to be as a resource for writing reports and in allocating on- and off-lead areas. Of importance too is its independence, given the acrimonious relationship Councils sometimes experience with dog owners. Other groups using the findings include metropolitan park authorities, community groups and some property developers who are designing free running areas into new subdivisions.

While the study has made a significant contribution, it has not solved all of the issues local authorities face in this area. In this introductory discussion, we look at some of the reasons why barriers still exist. We look first at why consultation tends to get so bogged down and consider the impact of various biases among all stakeholders involved in urban animal management (UAM).

We then consider pressures that lie outside the animal management domain. Open space planners still, by and large, fail to recognise that dog owners are adversely affected by contemporary park planning practice. The most likely explanation for this is lack of awareness, although dog owners still tend not to be seen as legitimate users of the public realm.

Public Open Space and Dogs does not warrant rewriting at this stage. In the future we hope to add case studies of different parks.

The Politics of the Open Space Environment

Public Open Space and Dogs cannot, in itself, resolve all of the issues associated with Council leash laws. This is because there is no one right way. The distribution of on- and off-lead areas is something that each Council needs to decide for itself, in conjunction with its community - and herein lies the potential for community division. Polarised views can become entrenched with seemingly no hope for resolution.

Another barrier is the various biases in the thinking of all stakeholders. Such biases are present in most conflict situations and tend to harden when people work in groups. We have observed four interrelated biases in UAM.

1. Bias from past experience

Past experience bias is clearly evident in UAM. We have spoken with dog owners who have 'never in 25 years witnessed a problem with dogs', and non-dog owners who only notice the dogs that are not under effective control.

There are hazards in the way people draw on personal experience to inform present judgement. This is because our sample of experience is usually small and unrepresentative.

We tend to be biased in recalling certain experiences and not others. Events that confirm our hypotheses about the world tend to be striking and easy to remember. They are more readily available when we scan experience to predict the future. In other words, what we learn from history tends to be what we expected to find in the first place. In UAM it is crucial to 'fact find' to the fullest extent possible (ie if there is a problem, what exactly is it?) because in the absence of clear, quantitative data, people fall back on the bias of past experience.

2. Bias from stereotypes

We all tend to simplify the world by dividing people into groups. When we know what some members of a group are like (eg dog owners, non dog owners, environmentalists, even Council rangers), we often think we know what they are all like. These are called stereotypes.

The tendency to simplify and generalise, to deal with people in stereotypes, is often a crucial component of troubled relationships between groups. Each side has its own stereotypes of the other. Each has its own version of the facts. And, the more cohesive a group, the more likely it is that stereotypical distortions will occur. Counter-examples that modify the stereotype go unnoticed, while particular attention is paid to instances that confirm prevailing prejudices.

There are innovative ways to deal with stereotypes in consultation which cannot be covered comprehensively in this discussion. However Councils need to be alert to their existence and impact in the decision-making process.

3. Biased information sources Some information sources are perceived to be more valid than others.

Information is given most weight by community groups when the source is an 'expert' eg a university study, a survey conducted by a company specialising in survey work, the opinion of an independent 'expert' in the field etc. However this credibility can be, and is diminished when the expert is thought to be biased. People tend to have inflated views of the expertise of those who share their opinions. They may discount the views of those who disagree with them because of perceived bias, yet they may overlook bias in members of their own group. Certainly, there is room to improve the way we consult with the community over access to public open space. In particular, uncovering the views of the silent majority is an on-going source of concern to many local authorities.

Harlock Jackson is presently researching this question in order to help Councils design the best program of consultation for their particular setting.

4. Bias in causal reasoning

We all construct causal theories to explain events and prescribe appropriate courses of action eg for long-term behavioural change, the best method of faeces disposal, etc. However our understanding of what 'most people' would do in a given situation is vulnerable to subjective factors. We tend to approach events with preconceived causal theories and then look for information that would confirm them.

All of the above biases affect people's judgement and need to be thought about and planned for in advance of consultation. Of course not all of the differences between stakeholders are products of mere misunderstanding. If they were, consultation would be easy indeed. But the act of focusing on barriers to perception often removes minor irritants and gives each side a more objective understanding of the other's motivation.

Contemporary Planning Practice

Public Open Space and Dogs pays a good deal of attention to the reasons why dogs and their owners need to be accommodated in public open space. To recap, these reasons include:

• The overwhelming popularity of owning dogs in Australia;
• The role access to public open space plays in responsible pet ownership (ie socialisation of dogs and enrichment of their lives);
• The benefits for humans (for exercise, as social lubricants);
• Urban consolidation (which means greater need for public open space by all members of the community); and
• The role reasonable access opportunities play in compliance with overall leash laws.

The case for providing dogs with a range of on- and off-lead opportunities has been broadly accepted by most stakeholders involved in the debate. However we still see many examples where acceptance occurs in theory only. The current trend in Australia is towards increasing restrictions over dogs. This is understandable given the complexity of planning for the modern public open space environment. The days of complete freedom for dogs in the public realm are long since gone. Dog owners need to recognise and accept some leash restrictions as a reality of the 1990s.

What is of concern is the reluctance of local authorities to provide dogs and their owners with good free running opportunities. Some other stakeholder or recreation function always seems to win out. The park is either too popular, too environmentally sensitive or has other functions that are perceived to be in conflict. Free running dogs are left with fewer and fewer opportunities, often in the least accessible parts of the municipality in which no one else has an interest. Of concern too is an apparent decline in the number of places where securely tied dogs can be left for a short time eg outside shops, libraries etc. This impedes people's ability to offer a range of different outings and clearly does nothing to encourage people to walk rather than use their car.

But why does this reluctance exist? Of prime importance is the perception that it would be planning for dogs - ananathema to planners - when in fact it would be planning for people with dogs. The distinction is important. It recognises the central and important role that dogs can play in people's leisure and recreation. By this, we mean more than as a social lubricant or inducement to exercise, both of which are important and have been established in earlier research. It relates to the way people's recreation tends to revolve around interaction with their dog. People don't just take their dog out because they have to. They take their dog out because they themselves get something outof it. When their dog experiences joy, they too experience some of that joy. In a way, it is like the enjoyment people get from watching their own children at play. More research needs to be done on this question but it is clear from discussions we have had with dog owners around Australia that dogs are an important part of leisure and recreation. If we accept this premise, it leads us away from the notion of planning for dogs to the more important need to plan for people with dogs. For the 42% of Australian households that own dogs this issue is important.

This is not to say that problems don't exist. They do, just as they do with most recreation activities. However to blithely conclude that dog owners won't behave responsibly is unfair. The effective control provisions have been in place around Australia for some time, however with little promotion and often lacklustre enforcement. The provisions themselves are open to interpretation meaning situational factors (like how other dog owners are behaving) often take over. The laws on their own won't result in lasting voluntary changes in behaviour. They need to be supplemented by effective and sustained public education. Fortunately most states are now implementing or considering formal education programs.

Contemporary Planning Practice

[COMPLIANCE] [STRATEGY] [HOUSING DESIGN] [AUTHOR][INDEX] [PETNET]