Unleashing their potential: a critical realist scoping review of the influence of dogs on physical activity for dog-owners and non-owners

Abstract

BackgroundDog-owners tend to be more physically active than non-owners; however, dogs have also been shown to inhibit physical activity for non-owners, under some circumstances.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify studies pertaining to the influence of dogs on physical activity for both dog-owners and non-owners, and adopted a critical realist orientation to draw inferences about the positive and negative impact of dogs via their affect on physical and social environments.ResultsWe identified 35 studies from disparate literatures for review. These studies confirm that dog and owner behaviors affect shared physical and social environments in ways that may influence physical activity patterns, not only among dog-owners but also among non-owners. The direction of influence appears to be most positive in neighborhoods exhibiting high levels of social cohesion, socioeconomic status, perceived safety, dominant culture, or all of these. In disadvantaged neighborhoods, the health of women as well as older adults may be disproportionately affected by dog and owner behavior.ConclusionsWhile dogs have the potential to increase physical activity for both dog-owners and non-owners, the presence or absence of dogs will not have a standard effect across the physical and social environments of all neighborhoods. Dogs' contributions to shared environments in ways that support physical activity for all must be leveraged. Thus, specific contextual factors must be considered in relation to dogs when planning neighborhood-level interventions designed to support physical activity. We suggest this population health topic merits further investigation.

Public health ethics and more-than-human solidarity

“…We view bylaws on dog-leashing as an example of institutionalising both humanist and more-than-human solidarity, beginning with RbV control and continuing through to the present day in relation to infectious as well as non-infectious diseases (Christian et al, 2013;Toohey & Rock, 2011;Westgarth et al, 2010). Even so, this kind of policy intervention still appears to serve privileged communities to a greater extent than disadvantaged ones (Toohey & Rock, 2011), and exemptions to leashing laws in select parks can also reinforce positions of privilege (Tissot, 2011).…”

“…Indeed, dog-related nuisances as well as outright threats deter physical activity and fuel animosity to an extent that is relevant for equity in public health (Derges et al, 2012;Toohey & Rock, 2011). Nevertheless, as exemplified by the killing of dogs in the name of public health, or for the sake of animal welfare, or some combination of these two motivations, the sacrifice of non-human lives may be entailed by both humanist and morethan-human solidarity.…”

“…Even so, this kind of policy intervention still appears to serve privileged communities to a greater extent than disadvantaged ones (Toohey & Rock, 2011), and exemptions to leashing laws in select parks can also reinforce positions of privilege (Tissot, 2011).…”

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

“…This is attributable to unattended dogs and litter from dog feces, affecting some dog owners as well as non-owners, particularly women and older adults (McCormack et al, 2010;Toohey & Rock 2011). The symbolic importance of dog-waste, furthermore, was a salient finding in qualitative research with residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Derges et al, 2012).…”

Toward stronger theory in critical public health: insights from debates surrounding posthumanism

“…Whereas, when this everyday nuisance has been considered or studied at all, a prominent finding is that the presence of dog waste in public spaces can symbolize feeling poor and neglected (Derges et al 2012, McCormack et al 2010 Indeed, the ubiquity of dogs and other animals kept as pets should disrupt any lingering presumption that the systems in which people live and the relationships that they value are purely human. About half of all households in Western countries include pet animals (McNicholas et al 2005), and pet-keeping is growing in popularity in many non-Western countries (Headey et al 2007, Oka andShibata 2009) The potential implications of pet populations for human health include a negative impact on zoonotic infections, a positive impact on physical activity in the form of dog-walking, and both positive and negative influences on mental health via human-animal bonds and pet-related interactions between people (Cutt et al 2007, McNicholas et al 2005, Toohey and Rock 2011.…”