Dog Parks: Benefits, Conflicts, and Suggestions

Abstract

The U.S. has become a predominantly urban population, where nearly 40% of households have as many dogs as children under the age of 17, and where the dog economy represents a $7.5 billion-dollar industry. The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to dog park development and the benefits they provide for the community, especially to dog park users (human and canine) as the primary recipients of this public good. The Trust for Public Land (Harkin & Bridges, 2006) declared dog parks as the “hottest new city park issue to hit America” (p. 1), and the “trend has the potential to add significant power to the general park movement, or can create divisions that debilitate it” (p. 5). Although dog parks have been around for over three decades, little has been written in the empirical parks and recreation literature to help practitioners and researchers navigate this phenomenon. This article attempts to fill this void by giving practitioners and researchers a context for what led to the Dog Park Movement, the general stages of dog park development, and the benefits, conflicts, and controversies that come with dog park development. A dog park from Norfolk, Virginia, is presented as a case study. The Norfolk case study exemplifies one approach to establishing a protocol for the development of dog parks, and how the parks and recreation department worked with their constituents to establish their first dog park. Additionally, the Norfolk dog park case study provides descriptive and qualitative analyses regarding the characteristics of the users. The findings indicate that this Norfolk dog park is heavily utilized; social, psychological, and physical benefits are being realized for both canine and human users; relationships are being formed (dog-dog, dog-human, human-human); and that users consider the park to be very safe. Following the case study, further suggestions for establishing a dog park, finding a location, and working with constituents are provided for practitioners. Given the paucity of empirical research, suggestions are also made for researchers. We conclude the paper by noting that dog owners (and their dogs) are a legitimate constituent group, and that the needs of both the dog and the dog owner should be incorporated into a comprehensive municipality-wide basis, rather than a park-to-park basis.