The second principle is to understand more clearly the needs of both dogs and their owners. Management practice to date has been hampered by a lack of information - inaccurate in the case of dogs' needs and simplistic in the case of dog owners' needs.
The most fundamental need for dogs in relation to the public realm is that they be taken out with their owner as much as possible. This enables them to experience the full range of benefits - exercise, training, socialisation, relief of pent-up energy as well as time and fun with their owner and other dogs. They don't need to run freely off the leash as much as they need interaction with their owner and diversity of experience (sights, sounds, smells, textures, other dogs and humans). This is not achieved by forcing them into separate spaces like specially designed 'dog parks' and private back yards. Instead, the emphasis should be on maximising the number and range of opportunities available both on and off leash. There is a place for specially designated free-running areas that allow dogs to romp and play, that extend them and offer adventure and exploration but not at the expense of a wide range of opportunities to choose from on a daily basis.
The guidelines provide more specific suggestions for designing parks with dogs in mind.
Dog owners are not all the same and they have different needs for access to the public realm. Among the potential users are:
Each group has varying characteristics in terms of age, mobility, time constraints, inclination, housing and family type and so on, for example:
We need to be aware of these complexities and avoid defining dog owners' needs in terms of one universal set of prescriptions. The "add-on" approach described above is especially prone to a simplistic definition of dog owners' needs.
So how do we plan in the face of these complexities? As yet our knowledge of the specific needs of different household and demographic groups is limited. However what is clear is that a range of different opportunities should be provided to accommodate the varying needs of different dog owners. This should be the prime objective of any strategy. It accommodates the varying needs of different groups and is consistent with the approach suggested for accommodating dogs' needs. The key principles aimed for should be accessibility and diversity. Overall it is the number of opportunities that is important not whether they are designated as leashed or unleashed.
A further consideration is the level of amenity (i.e. general attractiveness and comfort). As suggested in the previous section the areas set aside for dog owners are often those left over that no one else wants. But we need to remember that it is the owner's outing as much as the dog's. It therefore makes sense that to provide maximum use, these parks should be pleasant enough to attract dog owners on a regular basis. Doing so may also improve compliance with dog related by-laws in other parks.
Predicting demand for access to public open space is notoriously unreliable. There is as yet no accurate way to measure demand. Common mistakes are to equate demand with need and to extrapolate demand from existing behaviour. Thompson lists some of the concepts used in recreation planning that illustrate this complexity (Thompson, undated)
.
Lipscombe (1986) adds two more concepts of demand:
Lipscombe argues that despite attempts over many decades, none of the above conditions can be accurately or even satisfactorily determined. Nevertheless local authorities should use experience, observation and consultation to build up a knowledge and information base, learn about people's motivations, pre-occupations, interests and activities and inject this knowledge into the decision-making process. Assessing dog owners' needs thus becomes a matter of pragmatic, political and professional judgement.