Noise from barking can affect other park users and adjacent residents. The impacts depend on the number of dogs using a particular park.
It is important to recognise that noise level readings represent a composite of noise-generating sources located both inside and outside a park boundary including air and ground transportation, people in the park and children in play areas, park maintenance and so on. How seriously acoustic impact is viewed varies with different land uses as well as by time of the day and week, e.g. residential land use is more sensitive than commercial, evenings and early mornings are more sensitive than daylight hours and weekends are more sensitive than weekdays.
If required, a noise impact analysis can be conducted to measure the noise level contributions made by barking dogs against various environmental standards to determine their impact on ambient noise conditions.
Other nuisance behaviour that people associate with dogs is often behaviour associated with the home environment, e.g. digging caused by boredom, and aggression associated with defending home territory and asserting territorial rights. It is important to understand the reasons why dogs won't necessarily behave in the same way in the neutral territory of public open space - they are more likely to be engaged in 'joyful' behaviour which means they will explore rather than dig and will be intent on running, sniffing and playing. Sustained dog use could adversely affect landscaping, e.g. accelerated erosion and trampling, possibly urine burns on turf. However this would depend on intensity of use. There is a case to exclude dogs from municipal gardens and environmentally sensitive parts of public parks. However in most cases wear and tear by dogs can be accommodated by normal park maintenance. If wear on planting is excessive it may reflect a lack of alternative opportunities for dogs which has led to a concentration of canine recreation in the park in question.
Another argument for restricting dogs' access to public open space is that their presence (behaviour and smell) frightens away native wildlife unrelated to any incidence of aggression. This argument falls down on two accounts. The most direct failing is that the scientific evidence to support this view is far from sufficient to constitute the basis of a management prescription. The second failing relates to the fact that dogs are not the only agents that may frighten wildlife. Humans, especially children and teenagers, park maintenance staff and their machinery are likely to have as much impact as dogs.