Abstract
We examined the influence of dog ownership on physical activity, independent of demographic, intrapersonal, and perceived environmental factors, in a cross-sectional survey of 1813 adults. Although only 23% of the dog owners walked their dogs 5 or more times per week, the adjusted odds of achieving sufficient physical activity and walking were 57% to 77% higher among dog owners compared with those not owning dogs (P< .05). Dog ownership was independently associated with physical activity and walking. Actively encouraging more dog walking may increase community physical activity levels.
If your dog is fat, you aren’t getting enough exercise.
—Anonymous
Effective strategies are required to increase population levels of physical activity.1 Dog walking has the potential to increase physical activity in a large proportion of the community. The few studies conducted have reported that 40% to 80% of dog owners walk their dog,2–6 with considerable variation in total reported physical activity and walking.2,3,7,8 The extent to which dog walking is sufficient to produce health benefits for both owner and dog requires further investigation.9 Also, greater understanding of factors associated with physical activity and dog ownership would assist future interventions.10–13 In this study, we used an ecological model14 to examine the independent influence of dog ownership on physical activity and walking after adjusting for known correlates of physical activity and walking.
METHODS
Sample and Procedure
We examined cross-sectional data from 1813 participants taking part in the first phase (September 2003–March 2005) of the RESIDential Environment (RESIDE) project. RESIDE is a 5-year longitudinal study of people building homes in 74 new housing estates in Perth, Australia. The study aims to evaluate the impact of the state government’s subdivision design code on walking, cycling, public transportation use, and sense of community. The RESIDE methods have been reported elsewhere.15,16 Participants were aged 19 to 78 years (mean age = 40.0), and 40.5% were men. Ethical approval was provided by the University of Western Australia, and all participants provided written consent.
Survey Items
We used the Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire15 to collect self-reported physical activity and walking data over a usual week from RESIDE participants. Sufficient “total physical activity” and “total walking” were dichotomized at 150 min/wk according to recommended guidelines.17 “Sufficient walking for recreation in the neighborhood” was dichotomized at 90 min/wk. Dog owners also reported usual frequency of personally walking their dog.
Modified versions of items previously reported were used to measure physical and social environmental perceptions,18–20 intrapersonal factors (i.e., intention, attitude toward trying, perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, behavioral skills, and enjoyment),21–23 and sociodemographic characteristics.
Statistical Analysis
We used SPSS version 12.0.1 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill) to conduct analyses. We used the χ2 and independent sample t tests to examine bivariate relations between dog ownership and independent variables. We used logistic regression to explore the association between dog ownership and “sufficient” (1) physical activity, (2) walking, and (3) walking for recreation in the neighborhood. Blocked forward stepwise procedures were used to enter variables (1 = sociodemographic, 2 = physical environmental, 3 = social environmental, 4 = intrapersonal), with significant variables for each block forced into subsequent models along with dog ownership (0 = no, 1 = yes).
RESULTS
Sociodemographic, Neighborhood, Social Environmental, and Intrapersonal Factors
Overall, 44% of the participants owned a dog (Table 1 ▶). Dog owners were significantly more likely than those who did not own a dog (nonowners) to be women, to have been born in Australia, to have older children, to live in a single-family home, and to work in clerical, sales, or service occupations. Dog owners perceived their neighborhoods as more attractive and rated ease of access to parks and nature reserves higher than did nonowners. Dog owners perceived that they had more social support from their family in the last month to walk and to do other forms of physical activity and reported higher neighborhood cohesion than did nonowners. In addition, compared with nonowners, dog owners had higher scores for intention to walk and to do other leisure-time physical activity at the recommended levels, confidence that they could adhere to walking daily irrespective of barriers (such as work, family, or social commitments), perceived behavioral control, and use of behavioral skills (such as setting goals and planning days and times to exercise).
TABLE 1—
Sociodemographic, Physical Environmental, Social Environmental, and Interpersonal Factors and Physical Activity Among Dog Owners and Nonowners: RESIDential Environment Survey, September 2003–March 2005
| Characteristic | Dog Owners (n = 804) | Nonowners (n = 1009) | P |
| Sociodemographic | |||
| Men, % | 36.1 | 44.0 | .001 |
| Mean age, y (SD) | 39.4 (11.6) | 40.5 (12.1) | .049 |
| Born in Australia, % | 61.1 | 53.8 | .002 |
| Marital status, % | .232 | ||
| Married/cohabitating | 82.8 | 80.4 | |
| Separated/divorced/widowed | 6.6 | 8.7 | |
| Single | 10.6 | 10.9 | |
| Education, % | .032 | ||
| 12 years or less | 41.0 | 38.1 | |
| Trade school or apprentice | 38.8 | 36.4 | |
| Undergraduate degree or greater | 20.2 | 25.5 | |
| Employment status, % | .069 | ||
| Employed | 83.5 | 80.6 | |
| Unemployed | 13.0 | 13.6 | |
| Retired | 3.5 | 5.8 | |
| Occupation, % | .017 | ||
| Management/administration | 15.3 | 15.1 | |
| Professional | 25.2 | 29.8 | |
| Blue collar | 17.4 | 16.9 | |
| Clerical, sales, service industry | 26.7 | 20.6 | |
| Not in workforce | 15.3 | 17.6 | |
| Annual household income, Aus $, % | .102 | ||
| ≤ 49 999 | 23.7 | 27.8 | |
| 50 000–69 999 | 24.3 | 25.4 | |
| 70 000–89 999 | 23.7 | 22.9 | |
| ≥ 90,000 | 28.3 | 23.9 | |
| Children under 18 y living at home, % | 68.3 | 70.6 | .167 |
| Mean age of children living at home, y (SD) | 8.65 (5.4) | 6.90 (5.1) | < .001 |
| Type of residence, % | < .001 | ||
| Single-family dwelling | 90.9 | 79.4 | |
| Semiattached | 5.6 | 10.7 | |
| Apartment | 3.3 | 9.7 | |
| Mobile home | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
| Physical environmental subscalesa | |||
| Mixed-access land use, mean (SD) | 3.41 (0.63) | 3.45 (0.59) | .204 |
| Aesthetics, mean (SD) | 3.43 (0.69) | 3.32 (0.68) | .001 |
| Walking facilities, mean (SD) | 3.38 (0.58) | 3.36 (0.59) | .650 |
| Park or nature reserve that is easily accessible, mean (SD) | 4.23 (0.74) | 4.06 (0.83) | < .001 |
| Street connectivity, mean (SD) | 3.14 (0.45) | 3.13 (0.45) | .514 |
| Pedestrian/traffic safety, mean (SD) | 3.20 (0.53) | 3.19 (0.53) | .765 |
| Crime safety, mean (SD) | 3.45 (0.65) | 3.42 (0.66) | .233 |
| Social environmental subscales | |||
| Perceived social support for walking, mean (SD)b | |||
| Family | 2.75 (1.26) | 2.59 (1.24) | .008 |
| Friends | 1.54 (0.90) | 1.61 (0.94) | .118 |
| Perceived social support for other physical activity, mean (SD)b | |||
| Family | 2.24 (1.16) | 2.13 (1.14) | .042 |
| Friends | 1.71 (1.01) | 1.74 (1.05) | .614 |
| Neighborhood social cohesion,a mean (SD) | 3.03 (0.72) | 2.93 (0.69) | .002 |
| Intrapersonal items and subscales | |||
| Intention, mean (SD)c | |||
| Walk for 30 min on ≥ 5 d/wk | 4.61 (2.11) | 4.11 (2.17) | < .001 |
| Vigorous leisure-time physical activity for total three 20-min sessions/wk | 3.87 (2.30) | 3.72 (2.32) | .157 |
| Other moderate leisure-time physical activity for 30 min on ≥ 5 d/wk | 4.10 (2.02) | 3.83 (2.06) | .005 |
| Enjoyment of walking in neighborhooda | 4.09 (0.73) | 4.02 (0.77) | .068 |
| Attitude toward process of trying to walk on most days, mean (SD)d | 5.67 (1.20) | 5.60 (1.25) | .225 |
| Self-efficacy, mean (SD)e | 3.27 (0.95) | 3.11 (0.94) | .001 |
| Perceived behavioral control, mean (SD)c | 5.15 (1.73) | 4.78 (1.87) | < .001 |
| Behavioral skills, mean (SD)f | 2.21 (1.40) | 2.02 (1.31) | .003 |
| Physical activity in a usual week | |||
| Minutes of physical activity, mean (SD) | |||
| Total physical activity | 322.4 (338.3) | 267.1 (311.9) | < .001 |
| Walking for recreation in neighborhood | 86.0 (108.0) | 52.9 (86.5) | < .001 |
| Total walking in neighborhood | 114.1 (135.7) | 77.8 (109.8) | < .001 |
| Total walking for recreation | 109.6 (134.4) | 70.8 (109.5) | < .001 |
| Total walking | 150.3 (174.9) | 110.9 (144.4) | < .001 |
| Frequency in a usual week, mean (SD) | |||
| Total physical activity | 8.74 (15.77) | 7.71 (17.27) | .206 |
| Walking for recreation in neighborhood | 2.75 (3.05) | 1.50 (2.20) | < .001 |
| Total walking in neighborhood | 3.93 (4.37) | 2.94 (3.94) | < .001 |
| Total walking for recreation | 3.26 (3.57) | 1.91 (2.64) | < .001 |
| Total walking | 4.96 (5.55) | 4.05 (5.30) | .001 |
| Walking with dog in neighborhood | 2.55 (2.27) | . . . | |
Note. NA = not applicable.
a1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree.
b1 = never; 2 = less than once a month; 3 = at least once a month; 4 = 1–2 times/wk; 5 = 3 or more times/wk.
c1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely.
d1 = very unpleasant/negative/difficult; 7 = very pleasant/positive/easy.
e1 = sure I could not do it; 5 = sure I could do it.
f1 = never; 5 = most days.
Physical Activity
In a usual week, a minority of dog owners (22%) never walked their dog or did so 5 or more times per week (23%); the average was 2.6 times per week. Dog walking in the neighborhood accounted for approximately 65% of all walking sessions reported within the neighborhood and for approximately 93% of all walking-for-recreation sessions within the neighborhood.
Usual frequency and duration of total walking, walking for recreation, walking in the neighborhood, walking for recreation in the neighborhood, and total physical activity (duration only) were higher among dog owners than among nonowners (Table 1 ▶). After we adjusted analyses for sociodemographic, neighborhood, social environmental, and intrapersonal factors, the odds of achieving “sufficient physical activity,” “sufficient walking,” and “sufficient walking for recreation in the neighborhood” remained 57% to 77% higher among dog owners compared with nonowners (P < .05; Table 2 ▶).
TABLE 2—
Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios (Dog Owners vs Nonowners) for Sufficient Physical Activity, Walking, and Walking for Recreation in the Neighborhood: RESIDential Environment Survey, September 2003–March 2005
| Model 1 (Unadjusted), OR (95% CI) | Model 2,a OR (95% CI) | Model 3, b OR (95% CI) | Model 4,c OR (95% CI) | Model 5, d OR (95% CI) | |
| Sufficient physical activity (150 min/wk) | 1.34** (1.11, 1.61) | 1.68*** (1.26, 2.24) | 1.70*** (1.27, 2.27) | 1.68** (1.25, 2.28) | 1.57** (1.14, 2.16) |
| Sufficient walking (150 min/wk) | 1.41*** (1.16, 1.71) | 1.78*** (1.30, 2.44) | 1.75** (1.27, 2.40) | 1.76** (1.26, 2.47) | 1.59* (1.08, 2.36) |
| Sufficient walking for recreation in neighborhood (90 min/wk) | 1.85*** (1.51, 2.25) | 1.83*** (1.33, 2.51) | 1.81*** (1.31, 2.51) | 1.86** (1.31, 2.65) | 1.77** (1.19, 2.63) |
Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
aAdjusted for sociodemographic factors only (gender, age, country of origin, education, occupation, mean age of children living at home under 18 years, type of residence).
bAdjusted for model 2 factors plus perceived neighborhood characteristics. Sufficient physical activity = crime safety. Sufficient walking = land-use mix, street connectivity, and crime safety. Sufficient walking for recreation in neighborhood = land-use mix, walking facilities, and crime safety.
cAdjusted for model 3 factors plus social environmental factors. Sufficient physical activity = family social support for walking and other physical activity. Sufficient walking and sufficient walking for recreation in neighborhood = family social support for walking.
dAdjusted for model 4 factors plus intrapersonal factors. Sufficient physical activity = intention to do other physical activity, self-efficacy, and behavioral skills. Sufficient walking = intention to walk, behavioral skills, and perceived behavioral control. Sufficient walking for recreation in neighborhood = intention to walk, enjoyment, self-efficacy, behavioral skills, and perceived behavioral control.
* P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.
DISCUSSION
Although only 23% of the dog owners walked with their dog 5 or more times per week, compared with nonowners, dog owners completed significantly more minutes and sessions of walking (generally, for recreation, and for recreation in their neighborhood) and more minutes of total physical activity. These differences were independent of all other known major correlates of physical activity and walking, including demographic factors, perceptions of the physical and social environments, and intrapersonal factors.
The results confirm the potentially important role that dogs could play in increasing levels of physical activity among owners. Interventions designed to increase the proportion of dog owners who regularly walk with their dogs at recommended levels of physical activity are warranted. If successful, these programs have the potential to produce considerable health, community, and economic benefits.2,24
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Australian Research Council (grant LPO455453), the Petcare Information and Advisory Service (Industry Partner). H. Cutt was supported by an Australian Research Council, Australia postgraduate award. B. Giles-Corti was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council/ National Heart Foundation, Career development award. A Timperio was supported by a public health research fellowship from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.
The authors acknowledge the contribution of RESIDE chief investigators.
Human Participant Protection This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia.
Peer Reviewed
Contributors B. Giles-Corti, M. Knuiman, A. Timperio, and F. Bull were involved with the origination and design of the RESIDE study and baseline survey. H. Cutt analyzed and interpreted the data and led the writing, drafting, and revising of the brief. B. Giles-Corti oversaw the collection of data. B. Giles-Corti and M. Knuiman advised on the analysis and interpretation of findings and also provided input at each stage of drafts. A. Timperio and F. Bull reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of the brief.
References
- 1.World Health Organization. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
- 2.Bauman AE, Russell SJ, Furber SE, Dobson AJ. The epidemiology of dog walking: an unmet need for human and canine health. Med J Aust. 2001;175:632–634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schofield G, Mummery K, Steele R. Dog ownership and human health-related physical activity: an epidemiological study. Health Promot J Austr. 2005;16:15–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Suminski RR, Poston WSC, Petosa RL, Stevens E, Katzenmoyer LM. Features of the neighborhood environment and walking by US adults. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28:149–155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ham SA, Epping J. Dog walking and physical activity in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006; 3:A47. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Thorpe RJ Jr, Simonsick EM, Brach JS, et al. Dog ownership, walking behavior, and maintained mobility in late life. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:1419–1424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Brown SG, Rhodes RE. Relationship among dog ownership and leisure-time walking in western Canadian adults. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:131–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Thorpe RJ, Kreisle RA, Glickman LT, Simonsick EM, Newman AB, Kritchevsky S. Physical activity and pet ownership in year 3 of the Health ABC Study. J Aging Phys Act. 2006;14:154–168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Burke V. Dog ownership, health and physical activity: a critical review of the literature. Health Place. 2007;13:261–272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Brownson RC, Boehmer TK, Luke DA. Declining rates of physical activity in the United States: what are the contributors? Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:421–443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W. Correlates of adult’s participation in physical activity: review and update. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;32:1996–2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ball K, Bauman A, Leslie E, Owen N. Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Prev Med. 2001;33:434–440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Godbey GC, Caldwell LL, Floyd M, Payne LL. Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28:S150–S158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Stokols D. Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: toward a social ecology of health promotion. Am Psychol. 1992;47:6–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Cutt H, et al. Development of a reliable measure of walking within and outside the local neighborhood: RESIDE’s Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire. Prev Med. 2006;42:455–459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Timperio A, et al. Evaluation of the implementation of a government community design policy aimed at increasing local walking: design issues and baseline results from RESIDE. Prev Med. In press. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 17.US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1996.
- 18.Sallis JF. Neighborhood Environment and Walkability Scale (NEWS). Available at: http://www.drjamessallis.sdsu.edu/NEWS.pdf. Accessed July 2003.
- 19.Sallis JF, Grossman RM, Pinski RB, Patterson TL, Nader PR. The development of scales to measure social support for diet and exercise behaviors. Prev Med. 1987;16:825–836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Buckner JC. The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. Am J Community Psychol. 1988;16:771–791. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1793–1812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. Relative influences of individual, social-environmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93:1583–1589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Motl RW, Dishman RK, Saunders R, Dowda M, Felton G, Pate RR. Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:110–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Headey B, Grabka MM. Pets and human health in Germany and Australia: national longitudinal results. Soc Indic Res. 2007;80:297–311. [Google Scholar]