Simple SummaryIn rental housing policy, pets are rarely considered as valued household members. Instead, landlords and property managers are often permitted to ban pets outright, or to advertise them as merely negotiable in their listings for rental housing. In fact, previous research has shown that moving and renting are key reasons for animal relinquishment. To reduce the number of animals that are given up each year due to housing issues, we surveyed landlords and property managers about their perspectives towards pets. Also, because younger adults are disproportionately tenants and because dogs are often banned from rental housing, we interviewed younger tenants with dogs about their recent experiences in the rental market. Our results confirm that dog owners face difficulties in finding rental housing. To keep their pets, tenants made compromises on where and how they lived, which held consequences for their health and that of their pets. Suggestions for improvement are provided, as are implications for research, policy, and practice.AbstractPrevious research has shown that housing insecurity contributes to animal relinquishment and that tenants with dogs face disadvantages in the rental market. Still, little is known about how dog owners navigate rental markets, nor how landlords and property managers perceive dogs and other pets. This case study reports on in-depth interviews with younger tenants with dogs and on open-ended survey responses from landlords and property managers. In their housing searches, tenants with dogs reported feeling powerless in negotiations and feeling discriminated against. They described settling for substandard properties, often located in less desirable neighborhoods. Also, some said they felt obliged to stay put in these rentals, given how difficult it had been to find a place that would accommodate their dogs. Meanwhile, landlords and property managers indicated that listings advertised as “pet-friendly” tend to receive more applicants than listings in which pets are prohibited. Suggestions for improvement included meeting pets prior to signing the lease; getting everything in writing; steering clear from furnished units; charging utilities to tenants; and speeding up the pet approval process when dealing with condominium boards. These suggestions offer implications for future research, partnerships, and policy options to improve the prospects of pets and their people in rental housing.
Background: This study investigated the impacts of the first COVID-19 UK lockdown on dog walking and ownership. Methods: An online survey was circulated via social media (May–June 2020). Completed responses (n = 584) were analysed using within- and between-group comparisons, and multivariable linear and logistic regression models were created. Open-ended data were coded into key themes. Results: During lockdown, dogs were walked less frequently, yet for a similar duration per week and closer to home. Dogs whose owners lived alone, or whose owners or household members had heightened vulnerability to COVID-19 were walked less than before, as were high-energy dogs. A minority of owners continued dog walking despite exhibiting symptoms or needing to self-isolate, justifying lack of help, dog behavioural problems, living in less populated areas, and the importance of outdoor exercise for their mental health. Dog ownership had multiple benefits (companionship, purpose and motivation; break from bad; positive to focus on) as well as challenges (changes in dog behaviour, balancing dog needs with public health guidance, accessing pet food/supplies and services, and sharing crowded outdoor spaces with others). Most did not have an emergency care plan for their pet before the pandemic and only a handful developed one. Conclusions: Findings can be used to inform public health and dog welfare strategies for future lockdown situations or other disasters and emergencies likely to impact on daily routines.
Urban parks are important settings for physical activity, but few natural experiments have investigated the influences of park modifications on activity patterns and visitor profiles.We assessed the impact of implementing a municipal policy on off-leash dogs in city parks in Calgary (Alberta, Canada). Systematic observation undertaken in 2011 and 2012 within four parks captured patterns of use, activities, and visitors׳ characteristics. After baseline data collection, off-leash areas were created in two parks only. We compared changes in the sociodemographic and activity profiles in all parks between 2011 and 2012. Visitors with dogs participated in less intense activity relative to visitors without dogs. In both modified parks, the intensity of children׳s activities decreased, while the intensity of adults’ activities remained stable. Adjusting for visitor characteristics, the likelihood of dog-related visits, relative to other activities, significantly decreased in one of the two modified parks (odds ratio 0.55, p<.05). Accommodating off-leash dogs in parks has the potential to modify activities undertaken inside parks as well as the profile of visitors, but may not increase park visits among dog-walkers in the short term. Recreation, park, and urban planners and policy-makers need to consider the needs and preferences of the broader community in the design and redesign of public parks.
This paper draws on the work of Bourdieu to understand how experiences with dog ownership become embodied and how these experiences influence young people’s development as they leave home and learn to mobilize any capital to which they have access. Our results show that dogs can provide everyday routine during a stage in life when young people often experience instability. Additionally, dogs may help to shift the focus beyond self, thereby influencing how, and with whom, millennials spend their time. Nonetheless, balancing dog ownership with education, work, dating, social life, and other obligations could become challenging. Overall, this paper highlights that young people’s access to resources, including housing, may influence their capacities to experience all the benefits that pet ownership purports to offer. Dog ownership has numerous implications for healthy development among millennials, yet greater support may be needed to facilitate smoother transitions.
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 La traduction du résumé se trouve à la fin de l'article.
When disasters strike, companion animals (pets) matter. Emergency planning for them is a key aspect of disaster preparedness, especially considering that people may delay evacuation out of concern for their pets. Temporary boarding options for pets are important; however, caregivers (owners) must ultimately return to permanent housing. Surprisingly little attention has been paid to housing recovery in the disaster literature on pet ownership, and no studies have examined the potential for increased vulnerability among tenants with pets. This study analyzed online rental listings in a city that was severely flooded in 2013. In the following year, demand for pet-friendly rental housing outweighed supply. Landlords frequently stipulated restrictions on the allowable sizes, species, or breeds of pets. Dogs were often banned outright. To keep their pets, prospective tenants needed to exercise flexibility in location and pay higher surcharges. The implications of housing insecurity for tenants with pets have broad relevance, not just in disaster circumstances. Giving up a companion animal to secure housing can negatively impact resilience, whereas living in unsafe environments to avoid pet relinquishment may increase vulnerability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.