Comparing Support for Dog Regulations Among Adjacent Households and Other Visitors at a Multiple-Use Recreation Area


  • Chad Kooistra University of Minnesota
  • Ian Munanura Oregon State University
  • Ryan Brown Oregon State University



attitudes about dog management, dog restraint manner, visitation characteristics, survey, adjacent and travelling visitors


Ongoing management and research interest in dog-related issues at recreation areas necessitates examining support for relevant management strategies among different visitor groups. Using data collected from an onsite survey of nonadjacent visitors (n=1,257) and a household mail survey of visitors who live adjacent (n=74) to a multiple-use recreation area (referred to as the Forests) in Oregon, we compare visitation characteristics and attitudes about dog-related management strategies among these two visitor groups. Nearly half of all respondents reported bringing dogs with them. Overall, respondents supported providing more dog waste bags and trash cans and requiring leashes in busy areas. They opposed requiring leashes everywhere. Compared to nonadjacent respondents, adjacent respondents have been recreating at the Forests longer, used stricter leash behavior with their dogs, and supported stricter leash regulations and increased enforcement of regulations. However, effect sizes for these statistically significant differences were small. Thus, communication and management strategies that aim to mitigate unwanted impacts from dogs may not need to be targeted uniquely to adjacent visitors compared to those who travel to the Forests. We discuss other pertinent management and communication implications.

Author Biographies

Ian Munanura, Oregon State University

Assistant Professor, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, College of Forestry

Ryan Brown, Oregon State University

Outreach Coordinator, College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences


Arni, A. G., & Khairil, W. A. (2013). Promoting collaboration between local community and park management towards sustainable outdoor recreation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 57-65.

Andereck, K. L., & Knopf, R. C. (2007). The Relationship Between Experiences Sought, Preferred Settings, Resource Conditions, and Management Preferences in an Urban-Proximate Recreation Area. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 25(4), 39-61.

Anderson, D. H., Wilhelm Stanis, S., Schneider, I., & Leahy, J. E. (2008). Proximate and distant visitors: Differences in importance ratings of beneficial experiences. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 26(4), 47-65.

Arnberger, A., & Brandenburg, C. (2007). Past on-site experience, crowding perceptions, and use displacement of visitor groups to a peri-urban national park. Environmental Management, 40(1), 34-45.

Burns, R. C., & Robinson, K. F. (2017). Oregon’s Aging Population: Relationships Between Facilities, Services, Participation, and Sociodemographics in Outdoor Recreation Settings. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 35(4), 13-23.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Cutt, H. E., Giles‐Corti, B., Wood, L. J., Knuiman, M. W., & Burke, V. (2008). Barriers and motivators for owners walking their dog: Results from qualitative research. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 19(2), 118-124.

Davenport, M. A., Baker, M. L., Leahy, J. E., & Anderson, D. H. (2010). Exploring multiple place meanings at an Illinois State Park. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 28(1), 52-69.

Eder, R., & Arnberger, A. (2012). The influence of place attachment and experience use history on perceived depreciative visitor behavior and crowding in an urban national park. Environmental Management, 50(4), 566-580.

Harris, L. K., Shaw, W. W., & Schelhas, J. (1997). Urban neighbors' wildlife-related attitudes and behaviors near federally protected areas in Tucson, Arizona, USA. Natural Areas Journal, 17(2), 144-148.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Strauss, & Giroux.

Kellner, A., Carver, S., Gramza, A., Lewis, J. S., VandeWoude, S., & Crooks, K. R. (2017). Outdoor recreation at the wildland—urban interface: Examining human activity patterns and compliance with dog management policies. Natural Areas Journal, 37(4), 515-530.

Kooistra, C., & Munanura, I. (2018). OSU Forest recreation survey report. Oregon State University.

Kyle, G., & Graefe, A. R. (2007). Introduction to the issues confronting the management of urban-proximate natural resource recreation areas. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 25(4), 1-5.

Kyle, G. T., Absher, J. D., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). The moderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences. Leisure Sciences, 25(1), 33-50.

Kyle G., Graefe A., Manning R., & Bacon, J. (2004). Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 213–225.

Lafferty, K. D. (2001). Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation, 101(3), 315-325.

Lenth, B. E., Knight, R. L., & Brennan, M. E. (2008). The effects of dogs on wildlife communities. Natural Areas Journal, 28(3), 218–27.[218:TEODOW]2.0.CO;2

Maguire, G. S., Rimmer, J. M., & Weston, M. A. (2013). Stakeholder perceptions of threatened species and their management on urban beaches. Animals, 3(4), 1002-1020.

Mowen, A. J., Barrett, A., Pitas, N., Graefe, A. R., Taff, B. D., & Godbey, G. (2018). Americans' Use and Perceptions of Local Park and Recreation Services: Results from an Updated Study. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 36(4), 128-148.

ORPD (Oregon Parks and Recreation Department) (2019). Outdoor recreation in Oregon: Responding to demographic and societal change. The 2019-2023 Oregon statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Salem, Oregon.

Rahim, T., Barrios, P. R., McKee, G., McLaws, M., & Kosatsky, T. (2018). Public health considerations associated with the location and operation of off-leash dog parks. Journal of Community Health, 43(2), 433-440.

Romo, A. B., Taff, B. D., Lawhon, B., VanderWoude, D., Newman, P., Graefe, A., & Schwartz, F. (2019). Dog owners’ perceptions and behaviors related to the disposal of pet waste in City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 37(2).

Stevens, D. and Hussmann, A. 2017. Wildlife poop versus dog poop: Explained. Leave No Trace.

Wade, A. A., & Theobald, D. M. (2010). Residential development encroachment on US protected areas. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 151-161.

Weston, M. A., Fitzsimons, J. A., Wescott, G., Miller, K. K., Ekanayake, K. B., & Schneider, T. (2014). Bark in the park: A review of domestic dogs in parks. Environmental Management, 54(3), 373-382.

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Application in parks, recreation and human dimensions. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2007). Perceived conflict with off leash dogs at Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. HDNRU Report No. 76. Colorado State University.

White, D. D., Virden, R. J., & Van Riper, C. J. (2008). Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environmental Management, 42(4), 647-657.

Williams, K. J., Weston, M. A., Henry, S., & Maguire, G. S. (2009). Birds and beaches, dogs and leashes: Dog owners' sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(2), 89-101.

Young, J. K., Olson, K. A., Reading, R. P., Amgalanbaatar, S., & Berger, J. (2011). Is wildlife going to the dogs? Impacts of feral and free-roaming dogs on wildlife populations. BioScience, 61(2), 125-132.

Zajchowski, C. A., Schwab, K. A., & Dustin, D. L. (2017). The experiencing self and the remembering self: Implications for leisure science. Leisure Sciences, 39(6), 561-568.






Research Note