As stated repeatedly in this report there is no one right way to accommodate dogs' needs for public open space. It will depend on local conditions and pressures. The fact is that opportunities will need to be used wherever they are available, especially in existing built-up areas. The secret is to select the right combination of components to suit local needs and constraints.
The following guidelines list some of the features to be considered when planning to accommodate the needs of dogs and their owners.
.
Dog owners should have a public park available within walking distance of home. Walking distance has been established at around 400 metres (and up to 800 metres) although there are no hard and fast rules. It is a fairly simple exercise to work out the catchments for parks and identify any gaps in provision for dogs.
Accessibility is not determined by radius but by walking distance which is in turn determined by the nature of the street network.
Accessibility is reduced by barriers such as major road crossings and railways. Park use can be enhanced by selecting parks along street routes that are already popular as walking routes for dog owners or that are located en-route to the main generators of pedestrian traffic, e.g. local shops, community facilities.
Size: The size of park is generally less important than its location and suitability for dogs' use. In reality, authorities will need to make the best use of what is available. Shape and configuration: Similarly, there is no ideal shape and configuration although linear parks are ideal for walking dogs. In selecting linear parks Councils should be wary of possible conflicts with other parks users such as cyclists and horse riders. It may be possible to create two parallel tracks, one for pedestrians and dogs and the other for cyclists and horse riders.
This is becoming increasingly common in linear parks anyway
Entrances: The location of park entrances is crucial to its level of use.
Accessibility can be reduced significantly if entrances are remote from car parks and the main directions of pedestrian flow
Site Layout and Design: Sites should be able to be accessed and used by people with limited or restricted mobility (i.e. level walks, entrances without steps, nearby parking etc.).
Treatment of boundaries: In most cases park boundaries need to be fenced where free-running is permitted and where natural barriers are not available to prevent dogs straying, being injured or creating a traffic hazard.
Sites that are already fenced to roads, that require only minimal fencing or that share boundaries with other land uses should be favoured in site selection for free-running areas. The section following on fencing should be consulted for further guidance.
Traffic and Car Parking: Any proposal should be examined for potential traffic and parking impacts on the surrounding area. Significant impacts are more likely where only a few access opportunities are provided for dogs
Many parks already have off-street car parks and they should be favoured where dog owners are likely to be drawn from a wide catchment (i.e. beyond walking distance from home) and if there is limited availability of on-street parking
A road running parallel to a park boundary will usually provide plenty of accommodation for on-street parking but this boundary may need to be fenced if it is designated for free-running. The adjacent road may not be suitable for car parking if it is an arterial road or car parking availability is already limited.
A park with a several entry points from different streets will improve accessibility and increase the capacity of the existing road system to accommodate the demand for car parking. It will also reduce the concentration of activity in the park.
Access from courts and dead-end streets can create parking and circulation congestion although the effects might not be discernible where several access points to the park are available
Advice should be sought from traffic engineering and town planning departments about the likely traffic and parking impacts of any proposals. These departments can also suggest suitable mitigation options.
The problems of providing barriers to park boundaries are overcome where parks are abutted by other land uses that are fenced along the park boundary. However this raises prospective objections from immediate neighbours.
Adjacent residents: Adjacent residents may oppose a proposal especially where it involves a substantial increase in use. Common objections include traffic and car parking, safety, noise, smell, lighting glare, disruption to residential amenity and park ambience etc.
Proposals need to be considered on a case-by-case basis and it is important to note that the validity of objections will vary depending on conditions in the park and the design and siting of residences in question. Early advice and guidance should be sought from Council town planners who are experienced in the impartial assessment of objections. They can also assist with site selection and consultation with neighbours.
Sites should be selected where adjacent residents are well screened from activities in the park either because of distance, topography, landscaping, design and siting and so on
A street that separates a park and nearby residences will substantially reduce the effects of park users although it may raise traffic and parking objections.
It should be recognised that as the number of access opportunities increases any impacts from dogs will be dissipated.
Other neighbours: Other land uses abutting parks may also be affected by a proposal so consultation with all neighbours should be undertaken, e.g. schools, community facilities, shops etc. and the likely effects examined impartially.
Very often parks are abutted by semi-institutional uses such as Council depots and these could be favoured for intensive use by dogs and their owners. The boundaries are usually securely fenced already. However Councils need to be careful that access to the park is still convenient to dog owners and residents.
Paying attention to the needs of dogs is a positive statement of support to dog owners in the community. Improving the quality of the recreation experience for dogs is not so different from designing for play by humans. The design psychology should emphasise the interplay of movement, texture, form and line. The key principles are variety, stimulation and challenge, unpredictability and interest with a view to providing a rich and varied sensory experience. A combination of open spaces for running and smaller spaces with detail should be sought. All natural and existing elements should be retained.
.
A manicured park environment is not necessary and in fact a 'rougher' setting should be sought where possible. Demands for neatness should be resisted
Dogs will be attracted to areas with longer grass for defecating. Areas can be set aside that are mowed less frequently to allow faeces to disintegrate naturally. Grass of say 10cm would be appropriate and have the added advantage of reduced maintenance.
Contouring: Varying contours greatly adds to the appeal of a park for dogs. It can also act as a sound barrier making it more acceptable to neighbouring residents. Sites with varying slope should be sought, although not so steep that they are inaccessible for humans.
Earth mounds, hills and gullies should be retained if existing already or created artificially to give the park some atmosphere. Obviously careful consideration needs to be given to potential drainage problems but the concept is quite feasible and worthy of consideration. Ideally earth mounds should be formed as a new site is developed. On developed sites good clean fill would have to be brought in and mounds formed from the excavated soil.
Landscaping: Planting adds to the interest and diversity in a park especially where the terrain is not able to be modified. It can provide a textural and visual contrast to mown tracts. Plants and shrubs are relatively cheap and can always be replanted and easily moved. A reduced emphasis on park maintenance could also help, e.g. retain some unmown areas and facilitation of a 'rougher' setting as described above. A balance obviously needs to be struck between creating interesting spatial arrangements of plants and providing so much planting that owners lose sight of their dog in free running areas.
Planting can be used to help define different access zones in a park. A hedge provides some restraint and signals the end of one zone and the start of another (i.e. the visual legibility described earlier).
Planting is also useful as a screening device and for shade and shelter.
Plant selection should emphasise durable plant materials. A variety of scented plants could also be considered to improve the dog's sensory experience
Other design features: Features that add to the sense of interest and challenge include ramps, hurdles, tyres, tipped logs, boulders and other agility exercises. These can usually be provided at minimal expense.
Movement should be sought wherever possible to enhance the dog's enjoyment of the park by provision of moving objects and choice of vegetation that moves in the wind. Sandpits, while ideal for dogs are not encouraged because of their inevitable attraction to children.
Fencing can be used for restraint, as a slowing down mechanism for free-running dogs and for visual legibility in a multiple access zone park. The following considerations are relevant to fencing.
Where are fences required?
.
Hedges are often an ideal alternative to fencing.
Cost is a major factor involved with fencing. It may be possible to have fencing donated by local companies particularly if a proposed free-running area is being driven by local dog owners.
Where possible paving should be kept to a minimum. Dogs enjoy smelling their surroundings so soft surfaces that retain odours are preferable to hard surfaces
Individual state and local government authorities will have a preference for particular types of paving based on experience in using local materials and with local soils. Use of local materials should be made to minimise costs and to blend with the local environment.
Where necessary programs to assist owners remove their dog's faeces should be provided in accordance with local circumstances. At this stage, there is insufficient empirical evidence to support the use of any one mechanism and it is likely that a combination of options will be most appropriate. The following list is not necessarily exhaustive but highlights some of the options.
Owner-based options place responsibility for retrieval of faeces with dog owners. Their advantage is that people can select the option that best suits their needs, there is little cost to local authorities and no vandalism. However, owners need to remember to bring their chosen option with them.
The following are the two most popular options although any container is potentially suitable. Many Councils send out favoured options with rate or registration notices. If owner-based options are favoured separate bins should still be provided for faeces disposal as many owners will not take faeces home with them.
Pooper-scooper: A hand held device that scoops up faeces. It is usually re-useable and humans need not come in contact with deposits. Maintenance is easier because deposits are not encumbered by plastic bags or other containers. Pooper scoopers may be cumbersome to carry although they will fit into a large pocket.
Plastic bags: An easy and inexpensive method that doesn't require washing after use. Bags fit easily into pockets or can be tucked into a waistband/belt. Humans need not come in contact with deposits although some people may still find this method distasteful. An environmental concern if new bags are used but otherwise a way to reuse bags.
Management-based options
Management based options are those provided by the Council or park management authority. They are a positive statement of assistance to dog owners to help them be responsible. They also aid maintenance by providing a uniform disposal method (usually special collections from separate bins). Deodorisers can be placed under lids to help minimise odours although regular collection should keep any odours to a minimum. Management based options are potentially less effective than individual based options -the latter enable owners to retrieve deposits immediately. They are also prone to vandalism and/or theft. If management based options are used they should be clearly evident to park users and convenient to use.
Doggy loos: Pet faeces disposal units installed in the ground. Decomposition occurs within the unit and is said to proceed rapidly. All that is visible above the ground is the foot operated lid and its surround. Minimal maintenance is required (no refuse collection).
Pooper scoopers: A steel pusher and pan provided for use by park users. Because of its long handle, it is amenable for use by the frail and those with bad backs. Pooch patch: Originally the idea of Warringah Council (Sydney) but now copied in other areas, pooch patches simulate dogs' attraction to telegraph poles. A 'telegraph pole' is placed in the park surrounded by a light scattering of sand. Owners are encouraged to introduce their dog to the pole on entry to the park (they are attracted by other dogs' scents anyway). It would seem that dogs then return to the patch to defecate. Special bins are provided along side the patch in which owners then place the deposit.
Dung Beetles: Introduced into the soil dung beetles help to break down faeces. At the time of writing they are largely untried by park management authorities.
The 'Long Grass Principle': As dogs are attracted to long grass for defecating there is no reason why areas that are mowed less frequently cannot be provided for faeces to disintegrate naturally. A height of around 10cm is appropriate.
Other options: park management authorities have provided a range of other options on-site such as disposable bags and containers with similar advantages and disadvantages.
Lighting: Lighting requirements are no different than for any other public place. Lighting should be considered where heavy night use is anticipated. Specific locations, such as car parks and entrances, should be lit as a matter of course.
Shelter: All park users including dog owners need areas where there is shelter and protection from sharp winds, rain and sun whether by trees and clumps of bushes or purpose built shelter
Other: Other facilities should be provided as required, i.e. public toilets, seating, drinking water for both dogs and humans, shelter and bins (both for ordinary refuse and faecal deposits).
Dogs and their owners deserve consideration in public open space management - not only for their own benefit but also for the benefit of the rest of the community. Providing a range of access opportunities is actually a credible tool for managing conflicts and problems that reportedly exist.
The challenge facing park managers is not only to accept that taking dogs into parks is a legitimate activity but to work, in a practical sense, towards addressing their needs and those of their owners within a philosophy that seeks to accommodate the needs of all members of the community for access to public open space. What is needed is a change from reacting to problems as they arise to one of systematically addressing needs and problems to achieve a net benefit for everyone. It is not an easy task and is fraught with problems but the difficulties are not insurmountable.
This study emphasises a new approach to the way we consider these issues. We don't provide prescrip[tive answers - that is not possible. What we do provide is a framework and the supporting background for Councils to undertake a strategic assessment of the issues as they exist in their own localities.