The other side of the access equation are the reasons why we should continue to allow dogs access to public open space. It is crucial that we recognise the benefits and understand that they apply not only to dogs and their owners but also to the wider community as well as to those responsible for urban animal management.
The most obvious reason is quite simply because of their popularity. On numbers alone dog owning households deserve consideration because they constitute a sizeable group within the community. Section 2 outlined the demographics: 42% of Australian households own one or more dogs. If we truly aspire to catering for the diverse recreation needs of all members of the community (and this is fundamental to recreation planning), then we are obligated to plan for dog owners' needs as well.
Local authorities need to be aware that restricting access to public parks may disadvantage people, particularly the elderly who are less able to travel longer distances to use parks further afield.
The second reason for providing dogs with access to public open space has to do with its links with promoting acceptable behaviour from dogs. This not only benefits the dog and its owner but also neighbours who are affected by unacceptable behaviour by dogs at home, other park and street users and authorities responsible for urban animal management.
Some behavioural problems in dogs such as severe owner dependence, some types of aggression and barking can be traced back to lack of socialisation and a barren home environment. Dogs need to learn acceptable behaviour in the public realm and need to be socialised properly to prevent overt aggression. This is best achieved by owners training their dog while out of the home (Hart 1990) and through play with the owner and other dogs (Bradshaw and Brown 1990). Public parks are important contexts in which such socialisation occurs.
However dogs need more than just initial socialisation; they need on-going exposure to the public realm. Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd et al. (1993) recognise that daily exercise reduces boredom and pent-up energy while regular outings into the public realm give dogs a more enriched existence. All these measures may help to overcome some of the behavioural problems mentioned above. They also become more crucial with more pets being left at home alone during the day and as the effects of the government's urban consolidation policies begin to be felt (see below).
Access to a public park close to home is the safest and most effective way to ensure owners socialise their dogs and provide them with on-going experiences in the outside world.
The third reason why dogs need access to public open space is for the positive effects it can have for their owners.
Owning a dog encourages people to exercise and visit their local park; a positive feature of pet ownership for all members of the community, especially those with limited access to social opportunities such as the elderly and parents isolated at home during the day with small children. In an era when people feel increasingly threatened in public areas, being accompanied by a dog can also improve actual and perceived safety.
Taking a dog out has been found to stimulate social interaction with other humans. There have been several studies of owners walking their dogs. Messent (1983, 1984) had volunteer dog owners do two similar walks through Hyde Park and some of the surrounding streets in London, once with their dog and once without.
A record was made of the responses of all people who passed within two metres of the walker or the dog. When walking their dog, owners spoke to strangers a total of three times. No interactions were observed when they were walking alone. A second study followed the dog owner on normal walks at three different sites; Chellaston, a semi-rural village in the Midlands, England, Nottingham, a medium sized city in the Midlands and Fulham, an inner London suburb. This study suggested that friendships developed with others using the same route and that on average, the conversations with this group lasted for longer than those with people without dogs.
Another study, in which observations of all park users were made in a small London park over 11 hours in March and August-September, showed that people with dogs had 42.7% of the spoken interactions in March and 33.6% in August-September. People with dogs and a child in a pram had 42.9% of the spoken interactions and 60% in August-September (Messent 1984).
These results demonstrate the role of dogs as social lubricants in a local park and are supported by a Swedish study in the City of Gotenburg (Adell-Bath, Krook, Sandqvist and Skantze 1979) where 83% of dog owners agreed fully or in part that "the dog gives me the opportunity of talking with other people". Another Swedish study using a similar question in the rural district of Harryda found 59% of dog owners agreed with the statement in the first study (Norling, Jagnert, Krusdopf, Lundahl and Nillson 1981).
Given the demographic changes occurring throughout the western world, in particular the ageing of the population and increasing incidence of people living alone, the scope for dogs to facilitate social contact needs to be recognised and encouraged. For some, particularly the elderly who live alone, taking a dog to the park may stimulate the only human contact that person has for an entire day.