The Influence of Urbanization on the Behaviour of Dogs in the Czech Republic

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of urbanization in the Czech Republic upon the co-existence of domesticated dogs and their owners. We divided the data from a questionnaire (distributed to dog owners) into rural (R, n = 164) and urban (U, n = 132). The former group comprised of dogs living in family houses with yards/gardens, the latter comprised of dogs kept in urban apartments without yards or gardens. The data were evaluated by chi-square test.The differences in living conditions of R and U dogs were derivative of different structures of the respective households. In the R group, 3.7% of dogs lived in one-person households, 42.9% in two-person, and 53.4% in households with more than two persons. By contrast in U households more dogs lived in one-person households (6.9%), 58.8% in two-member, but fewer (34.4%) lived in households with more members. In R households, more frequently other dogs also were living (R = 60.1%, U = 32.1%; χ 2 =22.929, df = 1; p < 0.001), and a linear association was found with the larger number of children and cats and other animals in the house.Although the physical and social pressures upon the U group of dogs, based on permanent dwelling in small niches of urban apartments, were very strong (Czech apartments are comfortable, but smaller than in many other European countries), we found significant changes in 23 (27.1%) of 86 behavioural traits analyzed. Among them, however, only 6 (14.6%) from among 41 traits concerned behaviours of dogs (using the furniture, sleeping in beds of family members, mounting people, growling at family members, perceiving the moods of owners, showing fear, and destroying garden less frequently). The remaining 44 traits under study concerned the behaviour of owners/family members. In this category we found 17 significant differences. Their proportion was more than 2.5 times greater (i.e. 38.6%) than that of differences in the behaviour of dogs.We concluded that although the characteristics of co-existence of people and their dogs under study have different biological significance, it is obvious that in the urbanized environment of the Czech society, as this co-existence became more intense, the contacts between people and their dogs became more intimate. Furthermore, household members changed their behaviour (i.e., showed more changes in their conduct) more than their dogs. This transformation of behaviour notwithstanding, with even more rapid urbanization of human society, dogs are still viewed as desirable and suitable companions for humans. No doubt, this is because dogs possess an outstanding social cognition vis-á-vis people and even in an urban environment they are able to adapt and thrive under new conditions of the inter-species co-existence, i.e., contributing to the human-animal bond. Behavioural traits, rural and urban living, questionnaire, human-animal bondDogs, our most ancient companions, nowadays accompany humans around the globe, under the most diverse life conditions (Matter and Daniels 2000), including relatively recen...

Body Size and Behaviour Traits of Dogs in Czech Households

“…Despite this fact the majority of the traits under study documenting the mutual interactions of people and dogs did not differ significantly, not even in aggression as reported more often by our respondents than diagnosed by other authors (Beaver 1994;Houpt et al 1996;Takeuchi et al 2001;Anonymous 2002). No significant differences among dogs belonging to the five body size groups were detected and the data presented in this paper correspond with those published earlier (Baranyiová et al 2001(Baranyiová et al , 2004(Baranyiová et al , 2005.…”

“…They perceived less the moods of their owners. Only these dogs were kept as companions and also as working dogs, more often in houses with yards or gardens, in rural environments as pointed out in our previous paper (Baranyiová et al 2005). They were rarely allowed to sleep in beds and use furniture.…”

“…The questionnaire was published in a monthly magazine "Náš pes" (Our Dog). The same set of primary data was used as in previous papers reporting on other aspects of the human-dog coexistence (Baranyiová et al 2001(Baranyiová et al , 2004(Baranyiová et al , 2005(Baranyiová et al , 2007. About 90% of data came from its readers and the rest was obtained from clients of several veterinary practices.…”

“…They were walked for exercise and elimination. Urban dogs used furniture significantly more frequently than dogs in rural households (Baranyiová et al 2005), they slept in beds of household members, occasionally attempted to mount them, or growled at them, reportedly perceived the moods of owners and were also fearful. It is obvious that in urbanised environment the coexistence of dogs and people was much more intensive and intimate (Baranyiová et al 2005).…”

“…Many of them are kept as companions and are no longer used for their original purpose (Baranyiová et al 2005;Stafford 2007). The statement "emphasis on physical characteristics may have led breeders to pay insufficient attention to behaviour" (Stafford 2007) has been supported by the fact that canine behaviour is increasingly becoming a focus of attention for several reasons.…”