Encouraging physical activity through dog walking: Why don't some owners walk with their dog?

Cutt, Hayley E.; Giles-Corti, Billie; Knuiman, Matthew

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.08.015

Cited by 102 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…40 Not surprisingly, dog owners who walk their dogs are more likely to achieve the recommended level of physical activity than dog owners who do not walk their dogs. 25,26,[41][42][43][44] Unfortunately, a significant proportion of dog owners do not regularly walk their dogs. 25,27,31,36,43,45 No significant associations have been reported between physical activity and cat or other types of pet ownership.…”

Section: Pet Ownership and Physical Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25,26,[41][42][43][44] Unfortunately, a significant proportion of dog owners do not regularly walk their dogs. 25,27,31,36,43,45 No significant associations have been reported between physical activity and cat or other types of pet ownership. 18,25,26,30,38,39,46 Several studies have assessed changes in physical activity after acquisition of a pet.…”

Section: Pet Ownership and Physical Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pet Ownership and Cardiovascular Risk

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Pet Ownership and Physical Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pet Ownership and Physical Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Pet Ownership and Cardiovascular Risk

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Dog-walking is a commonplace occurrence, irrespective of whether dog-owners live in urban settings conducive to walking, in general, or to dog-walking, in particular (Cutt, Giles-Corti, & Knuiman, 2008;McCormack et al, 2011). Because physical inactivity is associated with illhealth and given that not all dog-owners regularly walk their dogs, a growing body of health promotion research on dog-ownership is focused on physical activity informed by socioecological and psychological theories of behavioral change (Christian et al, 2013;Westgarth, Christley, & Christian, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitus and responsible dog-ownership: reconsidering the health promotion implications of ‘dog-shaped’ holes in people’s lives

Degeling

Rock

Rogers

et al. 2015

Critical Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsible dog-ownership has been identified as a point of intervention to promote physical activity, based upon an expectation of dog-walking in public space. Nevertheless, quantitative research has found variability among owners in their dog-walking. In this study, we explore the implications for health promotion of such variability. We do so by drawing on the concepts of habitus and social capital to analyze qualitative interviews. Participants were recruited from a social network in a cosmopolitan city with a policy framework intended to ensure equitable access to public space for dog-walkers. The analysis confirms dog-ownership can promote both physical activity and social capital, to the extent of mutual reinforcement. Yet we identified patterns of care in which dogs could influence people's emotional well-being without promoting physical activity. In particular, some owners were not capable of extensive dog-walking but still benefited emotionally from dog-ownership and from interpersonal interactions facilitated by dog-ownership. Some participants' dogs, however, could not be walked in public without risking public safety and social sanctions. Responsible dog ownership can therefore also entail not exercising dogs. Contra to the emerging ideal in health promotion, a "dog-shaped hole" in someone's life does not always take the form of a walking companion.

show abstract

“…12,13 The proximity of parks -including parks designed to support dog-specific activities, such as off-leash areasis also associated with dog-walking. 9,11,14,15 Some researchers have observed that the level of general walkability, typically found to be associated with walking for transportation and recreation, 16 is also important for dog-walking. 17 While these findings are promising, more evidence on the built environment determinants of dogwalking is needed to inform urban planning and municipal policy (including bylaws) in the Canadian context.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supportive neighbourhood built characteristics and dog-walking in Canadian adults

McCormack

Graham

Christian

et al. 2016

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Encouraging physical activity through dog walking: Why don't some owners walk with their dog?

Cited by 102 publications

References 20 publications

Pet Ownership and Cardiovascular Risk

Pet Ownership and Cardiovascular Risk

Habitus and responsible dog-ownership: reconsidering the health promotion implications of ‘dog-shaped’ holes in people’s lives

Supportive neighbourhood built characteristics and dog-walking in Canadian adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About