The Effect of Ambivalence on On-Leash Dog Walking Compliance Behavior in Parks and Protected Areas

Abstract

This study employed the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to examine how ambivalence affects compliance of visitors to regulation concerning on-leash dog requirement in a national park setting. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve in British Columbia, Canada, has a substantial challenge with off-leash dogs, which interfere with shorebirds and contribute to habituation of wolves that come to view dogs as prey. Historically, the park has favored indirect visitor education strategies over direct enforcement. These visitor education strategies rely upon frequency and intensity of information, conservation appeal for keeping wolves unhabituated and "wild," respecting sensitive shorebird habitat, and fear, by presenting dogs as prey. However, the ineffectiveness of current strategies and ongoing visitor noncompliance with dog-leashing regulations has presented a significant challenge, highlighting the importance of theory in developing effective strategies to influence visitor behavior. Following TPB methodology, interviews were conducted with compliers (dogs on-leash) and noncompliers (dogs off-leash) from which a survey was developed. Results found a strong relationship between behavior, intentions, and the three factors that influence intentions: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. However, relations were weaker between each of these factors and the relevant beliefs thought to be influencing each factor. The next phase of analysis examined ambivalence, which occurs when visitors hold conflicting attitudinal beliefs about a desired behavior. In this ambivalence situation, park visitors may choose not to reflect on beliefs when forming their attitudes about complying with on-leash regulations. Park regulations and communications usually target attitudinal beliefs in order to influence visitor behavior, but under conditions of ambivalence, this kind of strategy may not be effective. In an ambivalence situation, messages to achieve compliance should be directed at influencing norms and perceived control, rather than just attempting to influence attitudes. In addition to messaging, alternative strategies to influence visitor behavior may be warranted that emphasize community level outreach initiatives focused on personal contact. Patrolling and on-leash enforcement in combination with outreach may be more effective. Seasonal closures to sensitive areas during peak migration may also make enforcement a less daunting task of managing visitors in such a large area. Providing an alternative beach area or other location where dogs can run free may also make it easier for park visitors with dogs to engage in compliance behavior. Media, social media, "prompts" that remind people to "leash up," and messages delivered by a credible source also have the potential to influence on-leash behavior.

Walking Off-Trail in National Parks: Monkey See Monkey Do

“…This study supported H1 about behavioral beliefs on walking offtrail, which is similar to past TPB non-compliant research in national parks. Previous research on permitting dogs off-leash (Bowes et al, 2017) and staying on marked tracks (Kidd et al, 2015) have verified the efficacy of attitudes in illuminating deviant acts. The impact of normative beliefs was evident in shaping expectations and encouraged visitors to walk off-trail.…”

“…Thus, individuals who hold positive attitudes toward off-trail walking are more likely to non-comply. This has been shown in non-compliant studies such as staying on marked tracks (Kidd et al, 2015;Schwartz et al, 2018), offleash dog walking (Bowes et al, 2017), littering (Al-mosa et al, 2017;Brown et al, 2010), and hunting (Castilho et al, 2018), where visitors had a positive attitude toward noncompliance and therefore enacted their intentions. Thus, it is hypothesized that:…”

“…For example, letting dogs off-leash at national parks is a form of noncompliance but dog owners often perceived this as a 'minor issue' (Bowes et al, 2017). Non-compliant motivations can also be framed through social justification and influence.…”

“…In addition, not all non-compliant behaviors are volitional and could be triggered by external factors such as perceived overcrowding (Sim et al, 2018), lack of signage (Bradford & McIntyre, 2007) or misinterpretation of signage (Sever & Verbic, 2018). More importantly, the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) has demonstrated to be valuable in understanding earlier compliant studies such as walking dogs off-leash in parks (Bowes et al, 2017), hunting intentions in parks (Castilho, Vleeschouwer, Milner-Gulland & Schiavetti, 2018), and staying on marked tracks (Kidd et al, 2015;Schwartz et al, 2018).…”

Who Is Pulling the Leash? Effects of Human Gender and Dog Sex on Human–Dog Dyads When Walking On-Leash

“…Previous research on human–dog interactions has mainly investigated behavioural interactions while dogs were off-leash [ 12 , 13 ]. Mandatory dog leash laws have been implemented in many countries around the world to protect wildlife [ 14 ], reduce disease transmission [ 15 ], prevent dog attacks and dog involvement in road traffic accidents [ 16 , 17 ]. There is a growing emphasis on the importance of loose leash heelwork, as a tense leash can be detrimental to the health of dogs by damaging their trachea and having negative effects on their cornea and intraocular pressure [ 18 ].…”