Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our study objectives were to: 1) estimate differences in perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment among non-dog-owners, owners who walk their dogs (dog-walkers) and owners who do not walk their dogs (non-dog-walkers), and 2) estimate associations between perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment and dog-walking frequency.
METHOD: A random cross-section of Calgary adults completed telephone interviews during August–October 2007 (n = 2,199, response rate = 33.6%) or January–April 2008 (n = 2,223, response rate = 36.7%). Telephone interviews and a follow-up questionnaire captured physical activity, health and sociodemographic characteristics, dog-ownership, and perceived built environment characteristics. Using ANOVA, we compared the perceived built environment among non-dog-owners, non-dog-walkers and dog-walkers. For dog-owners only, logistic regression estimated associations (odds ratios: OR) between dogwalking participation and perceived built environment. Among dog-walkers, logistic regression estimated associations between dog-walking ≥4 times/week and perceived built environment. Furthermore, among dog-walkers, linear regression estimated associations (unstandardized β) between dog-walking frequency and perceived built environment.
RESULTS: Compared with dog-walkers, non-dog-owners reported more positive perceptions of neighbourhood street connectivity, pedestrian infrastructure, and walkability (p < 0.05). Among dog-walkers, aesthetics was positively associated (p < 0.05) with the likelihood of walking the dog ≥4 times in a usual week (covariate-adjusted-OR = 1.67) and dog-walking frequency (covariate-adjusted-β = 0.15). Among dog-walkers, walkability was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with dog-walking ≥4 times in a usual week (covariate-adjusted-OR = 1.03) and dog-walking frequency (covariateadjusted- β = 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment appear to differ between non-dog-owners and dog-owners. While built environment improvements may not encourage owners to initiate dog-walking, creating attractive and walkable neighbourhoods may support regular dog-walking among owners already walking their dogs.
Key Words: Physical activity, dogs, neighbourhood, built environment, walking
Résumé
OBJECTIFS : Notre étude visait: 1) à estimer les écarts dans la perception de l’environnement bâti du quartier chez les non-propriétaires de chiens, les propriétaires qui promènent leurs chiens (promeneurs de chiens) et les propriétaires qui ne promènent pas leurs chiens (non-promeneurs de chiens) et 2) à estimer les associations entre la perception de l’environnement bâti du quartier et la fréquence de promenade de chiens.
MÉTHODE : Un échantillon aléatoire d’adultes de Calgary a répondu à un sondage téléphonique entre août et octobre 2007 (n = 2 199, taux de réponse = 33,6 %) ou entre janvier et avril 2008 (n = 2 223, taux de réponse = 36,7 %). Ces sondages téléphoniques et un questionnaire de suivi ont permis de saisir des données sur l’activité physique, la santé et les caractéristiques sociodémographiques, la possession de chiens et les caractéristiques subjectives de l’environnement bâti. À l’aide d’une analyse de la variance, nous avons comparé l’environnement bâti perçu par les non-propriétaires de chiens, les non-promeneurs de chiens et les promeneurs de chiens. Pour les propriétaires de chiens seulement, nous avons procédé par régression logistique pour estimer les associations (rapports de cotes: RC) entre le fait de promener un chien et l’environnement bâti perçu. Chez les promeneurs de chiens, une analyse de régression logistique a estimé les associations entre la promenade de chiens ≥4 fois/semaine et l’environnement bâti perçu. Par ailleurs, chez les promeneurs de chiens, nous avons estimé par régression linéaire les associations (coefficients non standardisés β) entre la fréquence de promenade de chiens et l’environnement bâti perçu.
RÉSULTATS : Comparativement aux promeneurs de chiens, les nonpropriétaires de chiens ont affiché une perception plus positive de la connectivité des rues du quartier, des infrastructures piétonnières et de la marchabilité (p < 0,05). Chez les promeneurs de chiens, l’esthétisme était positivement associé (p < 0,05) à la probabilité de promener le chien ≥4 fois au cours d’une semaine type (RC pondéré en fonction des covariables = 1,67) et à la fréquence de promenade du chien (β pondéré en fonction des covariables = 0,15). Chez les promeneurs de chiens, la marchabilité était aussi positivement associée (p < 0,05) à la promenade du chien ≥4 fois au cours d’une semaine type (RC pondéré en fonction des covariables = 1,03) et à la fréquence de promenade du chien (β pondéré en fonction des covariables = 0,05).
CONCLUSION : La perception de l’environnement bâti du quartier semble être différente selon que l’on est ou non propriétaire d’un chien. Les améliorations à l’environnement bâti n’encouragent pas nécessairement les propriétaires de chiens à promener leur animal, mais la création de quartiers attrayants et propices à la marche pourrait favoriser les promenades régulières chez les propriétaires qui promènent déjà leurs chiens.
Mots Clés: activité, physique, chiens, quartier, environnement bâti, Marche
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: This study was part of the EcoEUFORIA project funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; PI Dr. Alan Shiell). The contributions of Patricia Doyle-Baker, Beverly Sandalack, Christine Friedenreich and Billie Giles-Corti to the EcoEUFORIA project are also acknowledged. GMk is supported by a CIHR New Investigator Award. TG is supported by a CIHR Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship (CGS-D). HC is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)/National Heart Foundation Early Career Fellowship (#1036350). MR is supported by an Alberta Innovates–Population Health Investigator Award (AHFMR-200700286) and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)–Institute of Population and Public Health (CIHR-IPPH, GIR-112745) funding. AT is supported by an Alberta Innovates Health Solutions (AIHS) Graduate Studentship.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.Warburton DE, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. CMAJ. 2006;174(6):801–9. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.051351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.American Pet Products Association. APPA National Pet Owners Survey 2015–2016. Greenwich, CT: APPA; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Animal Health Alliance. Pet Ownership in Australia Summary 2013. Canberra, Australia: AHA; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Perrin T. The facts and statistics on companion animals in Canada. Can Vet J. 2009;50:48–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Soares J, Epping J, Owens C, Brown D, Lankford T, Simoes E, et al. Odds of getting adequate physical activity by dog walking. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(6Suppl1):S102–9. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2013-0229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Richards EA. Prevalence of dog walking and sociodemographic characteristics of dog walkers in the U. S.: An update from 2001. Am J Health Behav. 2015;39(4):500–6. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.39.4.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Christian HE, Westgarth C, Bauman A, Richards EA, Rhodes RE, Evenson KR, et al. Dog ownership and physical activity: A review of the evidence. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10(5):750–59. doi: 10.1123/jpah.10.5.750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Westgarth C, Christley RM, Christian HE. How might we increase physical activity through dog walking?: A comprehensive review of dog walking correlates. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:83. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Christian nee Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M. “I’m Just a’-Walking the Dog” correlates of regular dog walking. Fam Community Health. 2010;33(1):44–52. doi: 10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181c4e208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Coleman KJ, Rosenberg DE, Conway TL, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, et al. Physical activity, weight status, and neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers. Prev Med. 2008;47(3):309–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.05.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.McCormack GR, Rock M, Sandalack B, Uribe FA. Access to off-leash parks, street pattern and dog walking among adults. Public Health. 2011;125(8):540–46. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2011.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Cutt HE, Giles-Corti B, Wood LJ, Knuiman MW, Burke V. Barriers and motivators for owners walking their dog: Results from qualitative research. Health Promot J Austr. 2008;19(2):118–24. doi: 10.1071/HE08118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Schneider K, Guggina P, Murphy D, Ferrara CM, Panza E, Oleski J, et al. Barriers and facilitators to dog walking in New England. Comp Exerc Physiol. 2015;11(1):55–63. doi: 10.3920/CEP140020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M. Encouraging physical activity through dog walking: Why don’t some owners walk with their dog? Prev Med. 2008;46(2):120–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.08.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Iojă CI, Rozylowicz L, Pătroescu M, Niţă MR, Vânau GO. Dog walkers’ vs. other park visitors’ perceptions: The importance of planning sustainable urban parks in Bucharest, Romania. Landsc Urban Plan. 2011;103(1):74–82. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.06.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(7Suppl):S550–66. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31817c67a4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Richards EA, McDonough MH, Edwards NE, Lyle RM, Troped PJ. Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with dog-walking. Int J Health Promot Educ. 2013;51(4):198–211. doi: 10.1080/14635240.2013.802546. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Temple V, Rhodes R, Wharf Higgins J. Unleashing physical activity: An observational study of park use, dog walking, and physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(6):766–74. doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.6.766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Toohey AM, McCormack GR, Doyle-Baker PK, Adams CL, Rock MJ. Dog-walking and sense of community in neighborhoods: Implications for promoting regular physical activity in adults 50 years and older. Health Place. 2013;22:75–81. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.McCormack GR, Friedenreich CM, Giles-Corti B, Doyle-Baker PK, Shiell A. Do motivation-related cognitions explain the relationship between perceptions of urban form and neighborhood walking? J Phys Act Health. 2013;10(7):961–73. doi: 10.1123/jpah.10.7.961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.McCormack GR, Shiell A, Doyle-Baker PK, Friedenreich CM, Sandalack BA. Subpopulation differences in the association between neighborhood urban form and neighborhood-based physical activity. Health Place. 2014;28:109–15. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Cutt HE, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman MW, Pikora TJ. Physical activity behavior of dog owners: Development and reliability of the Dogs and Physical Activity (DAPA) tool. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(Suppl1):S73–89. doi: 10.1123/jpah.5.s1.s73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Cerin E, Conway TL, Saelens BE, Frank LD, Sallis JF. Cross-validation of the factorial structure of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) and its abbreviated form (NEWS-A) Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:32. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Timperio A, Bull F. Understanding dog owners’ increased levels of physical activity: Results from RESIDE. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(1):66–69. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.103499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Hoerster KD, Mayer JA, Sallis JF, Pizzi N, Talley S, Pichon LC, et al. Dog walking: Its association with physical activity guideline adherence and its correlates. Prev Med. 2011;52(1):33–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Suminski RR, Poston WSC, Petosa RL, Stevens E, Katzenmoyer LM. Features of the neighborhood environment and walking by U. S. adults. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2):149–55. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Derges J, Lynch R, Clow A, Petticrew M, Draper A. Complaints about dog faeces as a symbolic representation of incivility in London, UK: A qualitative study. Crit Public Health. 2012;22(4):419–25. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2012.710738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Degeling C, Rock M. “It was not just a walking experience”: Reflections on the role of care in dog-walking. Health Promot Int. 2013;28(3):397–406. doi: 10.1093/heapro/das024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Reducing Gaps in Health: A Focus on Socio-Economic Status in Urban Canada. Ottawa, ON: CIHI; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Leslie E, Sugiyama T, Ierodiaconou D, Kremer P. Perceived and objectively measured greenness of neighbourhoods: Are they measuring the same thing? Landsc Urban Plan. 2010;95:28–33. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]