The public open space management environment has changed dramatically in the last twenty years. The range of activities in which people are engaged has expanded while budgets and resources have contracted. There is now much more emphasis on efficiency and improved management. At the same time, conflict in public parks appears to have increased although not necessarily because of a higher incidence of problems. Dog owners have not been immune from these changes. Increased restrictions are being placed on their use of public open space either by requiring dogs to remain leashed or by outright banning.
Many Councils are grappling with these difficult questions regarding dogs' access to public open space but their responses are often based on unproven assumptions and principles. Part of the problem is that the whole area of urban animal management is so new. The time has come to re-assess established practices. This Study aims to fill that gap.
The aims of this report are as follows:
1.To clarify the needs of dogs and their owners for access to public open
space.
2.To improve understanding of the benefits of access to public open space by dogs and their owners.
3.To develop principles for accommodating dogs and their owners in public open space.
4.To recommend improved techniques of planning and design to improve the quality of the experience for dogs and their owners and to minimise potential conflicts.
5.To present the findings in a format that will assist local government and other park management authorities to assess their own requirements for accommodating the needs of both dog owners and non-dog owners using public open space.
The Guide's principal concern is with planning at the area or municipal wide level although we provide guidance and suggestions for design and management of individual parks. It stresses the importance of taking a comprehensive approach that is forward planning in outlook as opposed to reacting to issues on a case-by-case basis as they arise.
The Guidelines are not prescriptive because there is no single right way to address these issues. The most important contribution this Guide can make is to set out the strategic framework to assist local authorities to assess their own requirements and choose the right combination of options in a balanced and informed manner. It provides the background and supporting information required and a framework for Councils to initiate a process in their own communities - the more detailed planning can then be done at the local level.
This section discusses the popularity and benefits of pet ownership and concludes with a brief examination of the developing field of urban animal management.
Owning pets has always been popular in Australia and it has become more popular over time. In 1994, 57% of households owned either a dog or a cat (42% of households owned one or more dogs and 31% owned one or more cats).
Owning pets is part of the Australian way of life. Eighty-nine percent of present pet owners and 83% of non-pet owners had pets in the family during their childhood. Fifty-three percent of non-dog owners surveyed would, in the future, like one.
The benefits of pet ownership are becoming clearer as more studies and case histories become available. Pets are now being recognised for their physical and mental health benefits, for their role as companions and social lubricants and in helping children learn responsibility and how to share.
The field of urban animal management has emerged to ensure pets are appropriately managed in the urban environment. The number and range of programs being trialed and implemented both here and overseas reflects increased community, professional and academic interest in urban animal management. We now have a broader and more soundly based body of knowledge on which to make judgements about managing domestic pets as well as more effective ways of disseminating new ideas and knowledge.
This section looks at how dogs and their owners have been affected first by planning for public open space and then by its management. It establishes the context within which access by dogs to public open space may be considered.
Dogs have not been considered separately by open space planners - their needs have been assumed to be part of the overall need for passive open space. This is probably as it should be and worked well in the past. The difficulty has emerged with the changing management environment where park managers have been forced to deal with more intense user conflicts. For dogs, this has meant greater restrictions on access.
It is because of this gap between the planning and management levels that we now need to plan for dogs and their access to public open space.
Local authorities have responded in an infinite variety of ways and with varying levels of success. Part of the problem has been a lack of correct information about both the conflicts and the reasons why dogs need continued access to public parks.
That dogs should be allowed access to public open space is a basic premise of this study. As a principle we believe it should be incorporated into both urban animal management strategies and open space/recreation plans. That is not to say that problems don't exist, only that the benefits should outweigh the disadvantages and that there is considerable scope for the problems to be better managed.
Unduly restrictive access policies are inequitable and likely to be counter-productive in managing conflicts and varying demands.
Conflict is inevitable in urban areas, it is not confined to park management nor indeed to dogs' use of public parks. Conflict is a matter of degree with its impacts ranging from threats to safety, to detracting from the quality of the recreation experience, to more simple annoyance. Whether a perceived conflict warrants attention is problematic. It is not an either/or situation, i.e. that there is or isn't a conflict, but is one of degree. It requires judicious assessment of circumstances and a recognition of the inevitability of conflict in urban society.
The problems generally attributed to dogs and their owners in the public realm include defecation, aggression to humans and other animals, barking and other nuisance behaviour. A related issue for park managers is non-compliance with leash laws.
It would seem that the problems are, on the whole, being kept at a manageable level. There are incidences where the level of conflict is high but we need to remember that these are issues that are easily inflamed by community, media and political interest - they require impartial assessment. We need to be wary of accepting uncritically many assertions made against dogs' use of public open space.
Having said that we don't want to underestimate or trivialise the seriousness of some problems nor do we want to diminish the constructive efforts being made to resolve the numerous practical issues that dogs use of parks entails. However we do urge park authorities to critically appraise reported problems and keep them in perspective: they represent a challenge but they are not insurmountable.
The benefits of allowing dogs access to public open space are not immediately clear and warrant closer examination. It is important to understand that they apply not only to dogs and their owners but also to the wider community as well as those responsible for urban animal management.
The most obvious reason why dogs need access to public open space is because of their popularity. Dog owners are a substantial group of park users.
The second reason has to do with its links with promoting acceptable behaviour from dogs. Dogs need to be properly socialised in appropriate behaviour. They also need regular outings to reduce boredom and pent-up energy at home. Access to a 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. This not only benefits the dog and its owner but also neighbours who are affected by unacceptable behaviour at home, other park and street users and authorities responsible for urban animal management.
The third reason why dogs need access to public open space is for the positive effects it can have on their owners. Owning a dog encourages people to exercise and visit their local park. Taking a dog out has also been found to stimulate social interaction with other humans.
All of these reasons are likely to be magnified in the future as a consequence of the government's urban consolidation policies (i.e. a higher incidence of smaller homes and back gardens). As more people live in compact types of housing it will place greater demands on public open space both for humans and as an outlet for dogs; a fourth reason to provide for dogs' access to public open space.
The final reason is that a balanced approach to accommodating dogs' owners in public open space may achieve higher levels of compliance by dog owners with relevant by-laws. If dog owners perceive by-laws to be unfair it may elicit a defiant rather than a compliant response from dog owners - they may ignore the by-laws in protest. If on the other hand, the by-laws are perceived to be fair they will be more likely to voluntarily comply. The disillusionment with enforcement has led to many worthwhile education programs being introduced. However the impact of these programs can only be limited without an access policy that is perceived to be fair by dog owners.
With the changing management environment new ideas are being tried but often on the basis of old assumptions. What is needed is a new set of principles that challenge, or at least clarify, these old assumptions.
The first principle is formal recognition of the legitimacy of dog owners as being as deserving a group of clients as any others. It affirms their legitimacy where disagreement exists and frees decision-makers from a limiting mindset that emphasises problems over the need to accommodate the needs of all park users.
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 is that they be taken out with their owner as much as possible. This enables them to experience the full range of benefits from the public realm (benefit to every-one, not just dogs). They don't need to run freely off the leash as much as they need interaction with their owner and diversity of experience.
For dog owners we need to recognise that their needs are likely to be very different depending on stage in the life cycle, housing type, inclination, etc. We need to avoid defining dog owners needs in terms of one universal set of prescriptions.
The third principle is that we should aim for integration of dogs with other park users. While separation is warranted in some instances, it should not be a philosophy upon which to base an area-wide strategy for dogs.
The final principle is that Councils should apply a strategic approach that considers access on a comprehensive municipal wide basis rather than on a piecemeal park by park basis. The latter is reactive and problem-oriented. It fails to adequately address needs.
The strategic approach aims for a hierarchy of opportunities that provides for daily, regular and occasional use.
These principles should form the basis for planning and managing dogs' access to public open space.
The principles outlined in Section 5 provide a sound basis for assessing the options for dogs' access to public open space. The main options are:
Section 6 assesses each of the options and makes appropriate design and management recommendations for each.
It would seem that the benefits of on-leash areas are misunderstood in Australia. In fact they provide an appropriate context for socialisation and some forms of training.
There is an infinite variety of ways in which free running areas can be provided. We present three approaches in this section but the distinctions are actually blurred.
Banning may be appropriate in certain contexts but should be used as a last resort measure, and only after a careful and impartial assessment of the conflicts and any alternatives.
Different zones in one park raise additional difficulties associated with the effect of different zones on each other. It is this option that has the most scope for improved design and management.
Time share arrangements allow dogs' access at certain times of the day, week or year. It is a workable option but has a number of inherent disadvantages.
These options have been used in many different ways throughout Australia. It is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each and ensure that they are used appropriately. However it is the combination of options overall that is most important not the policy affecting a particular park. Hence the need to establish a municipal wide framework
.
The starting point for any dog access policy should be to allow dogs in all parks in a municipality. In many cases this will mean access on a leash, although we found many successful examples where unleashed dogs were allowed in nearly all parks in a municipality. Areas where they are banned and/or allowed off leash can then be designated after a thorough and impartial assessment. This provides for a package of opportunities while accounting for any incompatibilities.
The question is where do you draw the line. We cannot answer that question - it can only be decided at the local level taking into account levels and distribution of dog ownership, housing type, existing opportunities, local opinion and so on.
The most effective way to accommodate dog owners' needs, taking into account these existing constraints and incompatibilities, is to aim for a hierarchy of opportunities throughout the municipality that provide dogs and their owners with daily, regular and occasional opportunities. The higher up the hierarchy the greater the priority given to dogs in planning, design and management. In practice the location and spacing of opportunities will vary widely according to local circumstances. Defining opportunities on the hierarchy should be an objective to work towards and a tool for assessing needs. In practice the process will be fluid.
Section 6 also provides suggestions for implementation and develops an example of how the principles and recommendations might work in a hypothetical municipality we call "Anytown".
This section provides advice and assistance on a range of common issues including: