Given the prevalence of dog ownership in countries like Australia, the USA and Great Britain, we may well assume that most people enjoy spending time with them and that they take pleasure in seeing their dogs happy. Anyone who has a dog knows that going for walks is one of the highlights of a dog’s day, (the other highlights being dinner time and the return of their people). In contemporary culture, people have dogs as companions primarily for the pleasure of their company, although some may also have them for a range of other reasons (Serpell 1995).
The physical health and fitness aspects of certain leisure activities – in this case walking the dog – have recently attracted the attention of health promotion and exercise psychology researchers. Providing for dogs’ needs for exercise is identified as a prime motivation for humans to exercise, given the central role of physical exercise in health promotion and obesity prevention (see for example Bauman et al. 2001; Brown and Rhodes 2006; Cutt et al. 2007; Cutt, Giles-Corti and Knuiman 2008; Epping 2011; Higgins et al. 2013; Johnson and Meadows 2010; Schofield, Mummery and Steele 2005; Thorpe et al. 2006; Westgarth, Christley and Christian 2014). The literature has concluded that dog owners tend to exercise more than non-dog owners and therefore that dogs provide an important motivation for physical activity in the form of walking. In lay terms, we may well ask whether people walk their dogs because they know it is their duty or responsibility as a dog owner – akin to a chore – or whether they do it because they enjoy it – a leisure activity. There may well be some occasions where walking the dog is indeed a chore, such as during very hot or cold weather, and there may be other times when it is fun, when the person or dog (or both) meet new friends or experience interesting new sights and sounds (and in the dog’s case, smells).
The role of dogs in motivating people to walk is not often identified in studies investigating motivation or determinants of physical activity – that is, those not specifically examining the role of dog ownership in human physical activity. Michael et al.’s (2010) survey of physical activity resources and changes in walking in a cohort of older men includes a question mentioning dogs in passing: “Over the past 7 days, how often did you walk outside your home or yard for any reason. For example for fun or exercise, walking to work, walking the dog, etc.?” The role of dogs is not explicitly examined nor mentioned in their results. Biddle and Mutrie (2007) jokingly refer to “walking your dog even if you do not have one” and comment that “we wouldn’t dream of depriving our dogs of their walk!” in their book on the determinants and interventions in the psychology of exercise, but fail to take this link any further. Even authors who have specifically published on dog walking as motivating physical exercise have not mentioned it in more general papers on determinants or correlates of physical activity (e.g. Bauman et al. 2011). Van Stralen et al.’s (2009) review of the determinants of physical activity amongst older adults does, however, recognise Thorpe et al.’s (2006) work on dogs as motivators for walking. Van Stralen et al.’s review includes a study (Sallis et al. 2007) reporting that unattended dogs in the neighbourhood are a barrier discouraging older women from walking.
Even though people may be strongly attached to their dogs, most dog trainers and canine behaviourists dealing with problem behaviours in dogs will attest that a great many people simply do not walk them enough or even at all (Kobelt et al. 2003; Linday 2013; Rooney, Gaines and Hiby 2009), even though they know they should, and may well have good intentions to do so. The dog walking and human physical activity literature acknowledges this unfortunate fact (see Bauman et al. 2001 and Schofield et al. 2005). Current and increasing rates of obesity amongst dogs is further evidence that not all dog owners walk their dogs enough (German 2006; Bland et al. 2010; Warren et al. 2011; Degeling et al. 2012; Downes et al. 2014).
Whether dog owners see dog walking as leisure or a chore may determine how often they walk their dogs, which in turn has implications for their dogs’ health and wellbeing, as well as their own. Do people fail to walk their dogs because they do not enjoy the experience, or are there other reasons? How many dog owners feel that dog walking is really a leisure activity, and how many do it as a chore, because they know they should? How often is it enjoyable? What makes it a chore at some times and not others? Can we predict which dog owners are more or less likely to enjoy walking their dogs? What do these patterns imply for dogs’ quality of life?
As the focus of this chapter is on dog walking amongst the general population, “chore” and “leisure” are defined as popularly understood. “Chore” can mean nothing more than a minor routine duty or obligation, but its common usage is consistent with formal dictionary definitions – a dull, unpleasant or boring task that one is obliged to do. This is not to say that dog owners may not see walking their dog as an “agreeable obligation” (Stebbins 2000, 154) but the focus here is on the extent to which dog owners distinguish between dog walking as a generally positive, neutral or negative experience.
“Leisure” is the time free from work, duties (and chores) used for ease, relaxation, entertainment and enjoyment. Opinions of what counts as a leisure activity may, of course, vary between individuals. Leisure activities are important for personal wellbeing or quality of life not only because they provide opportunities to form and develop social relationships and experience positive emotions, but they can also maintain physical health and fitness (Brajsa-Zganec, Merkas and Sverko 2011; Mannell 2007). Work on the role of dog walking in human physical activity has engendered a new interest in the other meanings attached to dog walking, specific to this chapter and book’s focus, the implications for dogs depending on their owners’ views of dog walking as chore or leisure.
An online cross-sectional survey of the general adult population was conducted in August 2016. It was introduced as a survey investigating favourite leisure activities without mentioning its underlying aim – to ascertain if dog owners would spontaneously nominate dog walking as a leisure activity, and to explore relationships between leisure activities and attachment to their dogs. The introduction to the survey read as follows:
What counts as leisure these days? How do we enjoy our free time and do we spend enough time doing what we enjoy? What factors (such as work or family status, having a dog, or personal motivations) influence our leisure time?
Targeting the general population rather than dog owners only was done to avoid potential bias toward more attached dog owners who are more likely to fill out a survey about dogs and more likely to walk their dogs. The survey was promoted primarily via Facebook, Twitter and other mailing lists (unrelated to dog ownership), attracting 172 responses. Approximately three quarters (73 percent) of respondents were located in South Australia, reflecting the location of the researcher’s social and professional networks. The remainder was located in other States within Australia (25 percent) and the USA (2 percent) and were included in the analysis on the basis that they did not otherwise differ demographically from the target population.
As is common in both online and paper-based postal surveys (Kanuk and Berenson 1975; Groves 2006; Smith 2008), the gender balance was biased toward females (79 percent). The age distribution was biased toward the 40–59 age group, with the youngest and oldest age groups (18–29 years and 70 or more years) both under-represented (ABS 2011 Census).1 The occupational profile was also biased toward professional occupations (64 percent of the sample compared with 35 percent for the total Australian population) and a correspondingly much lower proportion were employed in clerical, sales, administration, machinery operation, driving and labouring occupations (15 percent vs 41 percent for the Australian population) (ABS 2011 Census). The geographic distribution of respondents between urban and rural areas at 70 percent in urban areas was similar to the distribution for Australia, where 66 percent cent of the population lives in the capital cities (ABS 2016).
The auxiliary variables of age, gender and occupation are likely to be correlated with dog ownership and walking. The sample was thus weighted by age, gender and occupation (Kanuk and Berenson 1975; Yansaneh 2003) to better reflect the profile of the Australian population (ABS 2011 Census), which itself has a similar distribution to other developed countries such as the USA and the UK.
Based on their dog ownership status, dog owners were asked a series of questions about their walking patterns and attitudes toward their dogs and walking them while non-dog owners were directed to the standard “end of survey” message.
After weighting, the dog ownership rate amongst the survey respondents was 56 percent. This rate is considerably higher than the 38 percent (n = 16,000) for Australia reported by Roy Morgan Research (2015) and the 39 percent (n = 2000) for Australia reported by Animal Medicines Australia (2016). The ownership rate amongst respondents was higher for females (61 percent vs. 38 percent for males). Dog owners were more likely to be sole parents (14 percent of dog owners vs. 3 percent of non-dog owners) but less likely to be a single person household (18 percent vs. 26 percent). Dog owners were much more likely to live in a detached or semi-detached house with a big backyard (68 percent) and on acreage (12 percent) than non-dog owners (44 percent and 3percent respectively). They were also less likely to be full-time workers (51 percent vs. 74 percent of non-dog owners) and much more likely to work part-time (33 percent vs. 12 percent). Both groups were equally likely to be retired or not in the labour force (15 percent and 14 percent).
The results reported below focus exclusively on the dog owner subset of the total respondent group, given that respondents without dogs are unlikely to be walking a dog as either a leisure activity or a chore.
Eighteen percent of dog owners specifically nominated dog walking and 6 percent nominated other dog-related activities such as showing, training or dog sports as one of their three favourite leisure activities. A further 21 percent who nominated “walking”, “hiking” or “bushwalking” may be likely to take their dogs with them as a secondary part of the activity (Coby, Seli and Erickson 2003). When asked about how often they walked their dog (or participated in other dog-related activities) as a favourite activity (as distinct from walking the dog for other reasons), 41 percent of respondent dog owners did so at least once per day (with most of these reporting daily walks). About half of the remaining 59 percent walked their dogs once per week, and the rest did so once per month. Most (73 percent) dog owners who reported walking their dog as a favourite leisure activity reported that they would like to walk their dogs (or walk in general) more often. Lack of time was the main reason why respondents did not walk their dog as often as they would prefer, affecting 88 percent of respondents who walked their dogs as a leisure activity. The only other major barrier reported was their own health or injuries, accounting for 10 percent of these respondents.
Of the 28 percent of dog owners (n = 27) who reported that they were involved in at least one leisure activity they do not particularly enjoy, one specified walking their dog and eight cited walking, running or exercise (whether this exercise was structured, such as formal classes or unstructured, such as walking, was not specified). Structured forms of exercise (usually going to the gym) were the most commonly cited forms of disliked leisure activity (somewhat of an oxymoron given popular and formal definitions of leisure – see Kelly 2009 or Stebbins 2007), accounting for about a third of respondents involved in leisure activities they do not really enjoy, followed by socialising (22 percent).
While dog walking may not rate as a favourite leisure activity for most respondents, when directly asked if they view dog walking as a leisure activity, 77 percent agreed that it was (20 percent neither agreed nor disagreed and 3 percent disagreed). In sum, although most dog owners viewed dog walking as a leisure activity, only 18 percent nominated it as one of their top three favourite leisure activities. Including the 6 percent of respondents involved in other dog-related leisure activities, this brings the percentage to 24, but there is a notable distinction between dog walking as a “casual” leisure activity, and organised dog-based activities, which are more closely aligned with “serious” leisure (Stebbins 1997, 2007). Adding the 21 percent of dog owners who walk, run or hike as a favourite activity to the percentage of dog owners who specifically name dog walking as a favourite leisure activity, suggests that dog walking may be a favourite leisure activity for possibly 25 percent or more of dog owners.
Most respondents (76 percent) agreed that walking their dog is fun and 93 percent agreed that dog walking is a great way to spend time with their dog, but only 47 percent saw walking their dog as one of the best aspects of having a dog (presumably there are other aspects outweighing walking). Fortunately for dogs, only 3 percent (n = 2) of respondents thought walking the dog was one of the worst aspects of having a dog (both of these respondents also reported that having to pick up dog faeces when walking in public was one of the worst aspects of owning an dog, which might have something to do with this attitude).
Even respondents who did not report walking their dog as a favourite leisure activity categorised dog walking amongst a list of other activities as leisure or chore (60 percent), but 38 percent of this subgroup also felt that it could be either leisure or a chore. Only 2 percent saw dog walking as solely a chore or duty rather than as leisure. When asked if they view dog walking as a household chore, 18 percent agreed, consistent with the response to the direct question about whether they viewed dog walking as leisure. Just under a third (31 percent) were neutral about whether dog walking is a chore.
When asked to rate their enjoyment of dog walking on a scale of 1 to 10 (with low scores indicating less enjoyment and 5 as neutral), 84 percent of respondents rated it as 6 or more, with 58 percent rating it 8, 9 or 10. Who finds walking the dog to be a less than enjoyable experience?
A comparison of respondents rating their enjoyment of dog walking at 5 or less with those rating it 6 or more shows no difference in gender – men and women are equally likely to be unenthusiastic about walking their dog. Employment status does not seem to affect enjoyment of dog walking, nor does urban or rural location. Not unexpectedly, respondents who did not enjoy walking their dog were twice as likely to have behavioural difficulties with their dog while walking, than those who did enjoy it (26 percent vs 13 percent respectively). A two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test found the difference in the rates of dog behavioural problems between these two groups to be statistically significant (K-S Z = 1.41, p = 0.04).
People who do not enjoy walking their dogs tended to:
Most dog owners do not list walking their dog as a favourite leisure activity, but some dog owners do not walk their dogs at all (Bauman et al. 2001; Cutt et al. 2008; Schofield et al. 2005), although they may well spend time with their dogs doing other activities such as swimming and playing, or have dogs that get enough exercise playing with each other. Even amongst subscribers to a dog interest magazine (presumably representing the more conscientious and emotionally invested people within the dog owning population), the daily dog walking rate was only 60 percent (Marcus 2012). The present study found that 46 percent of dog owners walked their dogs daily. An additional 32 percent reported walking their dogs between twice and 5 times per week. Sixteen percent walked their dogs weekly, leaving 8 percent of dog owners never or rarely walking their dogs.2 This dog walking rate is much lower than the 37 percent for daily walking reported by Bauman et al. (2001), the 23 percent reported by Cutt et al. (2008) and the 31 percent reported by Schofield et al. (2005). The survey may have a bias toward more diligent and active dog owners; the social network sampling frame allowed for dog owning respondents who completed the survey to forward the survey link to their own contacts with a known interest in dogs, possibly resulting in under coverage of the less diligent or active dog owners.
Respondents’ age was not associated with frequency of walking (rs = –0.14, p = 0.28, n = 63) but type of dwelling was – fortunately for the dogs, respondents with little or no outdoor space were more likely to walk their dog at least once per day) (x2(4, n = 58) = 15.09, p = 0.005) (Figure 6.1). Figure 6.1 also shows respondents living on acreage may possibly have interpreted their usual daily movements around their property with their dogs as “daily walking”.
The frequency of dog walking might reasonably be expected to be a function of the dog’s age, size (Schofield et al. 2005) and energy level (generally a function of breed), but there was no relationship between frequency of walking and dog’s age (rs = 0.2 p = 0.14, n = 65) or size (rs = 0.09, p = 0.49, n = 65). In fact, in contrast to Cutt et al.’s (2008) findings, small dogs were more likely to be walked daily and medium-sized dogs most likely to be walked rarely or never. Large dogs were most likely to be walked between once and 5 times per week.
While recognising that the energy level of individual dogs may not necessarily conform to the typical energy level for their breed, energy level for each respondent’s dog was estimated based on typical profiles for their breed. For example, fox terriers and pugs are both small but poles apart in their energy levels; border collies are medium size and high energy while basset hounds, also a medium-sized dog, are generally lethargic; and the large breed Rottweilers and Dobermans are also quite different in their energy levels (Coile 2005; Libby 2009). No relationship between walking frequency and dog’s energy level was found (rs = –0.04, p = 0.73, n = 65).
Eighty-four percent of respondents reported that there can be circumstances that prevent them from walking their dog. The most common of these circumstances were being too tired, usually from working all day (79 percent), the weather (77 percent of respondents), and then a variety of other less common reasons including difficulty managing the dog’s behaviour while walking (21 percent), concerns for own or dog’s safety (15 percent) and the official requirement to pick up one’s dog’s faeces (10 percent). Six percent of respondents found dog walking so tedious that they would occasionally forgo the walk. For 34 percent of respondents, one of these circumstances occurred twice or more per week; 32 percent experienced them about once per month; and 22 percent experienced them about once per week.
Most respondents who did not enjoy walking their dog did not walk them daily – only 9 percent did so, compared with 52 percent of dog owners who did enjoy walking their dog (X2(2, n =59) = 7.97, p = 0.019). However, those who did not enjoy dog walking generally walked their dog between 2–5 times per week (64 percent) rather than weekly or less (27 percent).
Attachment was measured using the well-validated and widely used Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (Johnson et al. 1992; Anderson 2007), consisting of 23 items rated from 1–4 on a Likert scale with two of the items reverse scored. The range of possible scores is 23–92 with higher scores indicating stronger attachment. The reliability in the current sample was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96), comparing favourably with Johnson et al.’s (1992) Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93. The mean score was 73 (st.dev. = 11.8, n = 92), with the median at 76. The distribution of scores is shown in Figure 6.2, showing a skew toward the higher scores, indicating generally high levels of attachment amongst the sampled dog owners (Johnson et al. 1992 acknowledge that the LAPS may not measure low levels of attachment well due to social desirability response bias).
LAPS scores were grouped below and above one standard deviation below the mean (i.e. so that the cut-off score is 61) to account for the skew and the tendency for the LAPS to underestimate low attachment. Note that the small number of cases in the low attachment group (n = 20) means that statistically significant differences could not be detected for some items; cell sizes were less than 5 for some survey items when disaggregated by lower or higher LAPS scores, so some of the results should be interpreted as likely or indicative only.
Cutt et al. (2008) reported that people who did not walk their dogs were less attached than those dog owners who did, but the current study found no difference in walking frequency between high and low attached dog owners (χ2(2, n = 62) = 0.32, p = 0.85. People who walk their dogs daily or more (excluding those who do so 2–5 times per week) had a slightly higher average LAPS score (X¯ = 74, n = 28) than those who walk them weekly or less (X¯ = 73, n = 13) but an independent samples t-test showed that the difference is not significant (t(41) = 0.48, p = 0.64). A closer examination of dog walkers with lower attachment but who nonetheless walked their dogs either daily or 2–5 times per week (32 percent of the sample, n = 36), showed that 82 percent were female, more likely to view dog walking as a duty (55 percent vs 41 percent of the rest of the sample) and more likely to agree that dog walking is mainly for the dog’s health or wellbeing (63 percent vs 45 percent).
Although not reflected in frequency of walking, there were notable differences in attitudes toward dog walking associated with attachment level. Statistically significant differences are highlighted with an asterisk after the reported test statistics.
Respondents with lower attachment levels were much more likely to forgo walking their dog in the following circumstances:
They were more likely to agree that:
They were less likely to agree that:
They were more likely to disagree that:
These results are consistent with those of Cutt et al. (2008) who reported that a positive subjective norm about dog walking was less likely in dog owners who did not walk with their dog while the rate of perceived dog-specific barriers was higher than for other dog owners.
One key factor influencing the propensity to walk a dog (and walking at all) is access to suitable places in which to do it (Giles-Corti and Donovan 2002; Cutt et al. 2008; Coutts et al. 2013). The vast majority (92 percent) of respondents had access to a park, reserve, oval or other large open space allowing dogs (excluding dog parks) but 26 percent of this group did not take their dog(s) there. The most common reason for not taking their dogs was the dog’s poor behaviour, including the dog’s poor recalls (coming when called), anxiety and possible aggression to other dogs. The aggressive behaviour of other people’s dogs, especially those off-lead, was another common reason.
Just over two-thirds (68 percent) had access to a dog park, but 57 percent of this group did not use it, for the same reasons as those listed above. The smaller confines of a dog park compared to other open spaces were also a concern for several respondents.
While dog walking does not rate highly or even at all amongst favourite leisure activities for most dog owners, it is still generally regarded as an enjoyable leisure activity. This public perception does not mean we can expect people who both enjoy walking their dogs and are strongly attached to them to walk them every day, or at least a few times per week, as generally recommended by animal health professionals and welfare organisations (PetPM 2017; RSPCA 2017). In fact, over half of dog owners did not walk their dogs daily. Why not? Cutt et al. (2008) identified a range of factors – owners not believing that their dog provided motivation or social support, owners who did not possess a positive subjective norm for walking with the dog daily and perceptions of dog-related barriers and level of attachment. The present study also suggests that the constructs of rationalisation and cognitive dissonance come into play (Tsang 2002; Shalvi et al. 2015) – respondents who walked their dogs infrequently reported being too tired, agreeing that it would not hurt the dog to miss a walk occasionally, that walks are not really that important for the dog’s health and wellbeing, that dog walking is an optional occasional activity rather than a regular daily one and that other things are more important and take priority. Future research on physical activity, dogs and leisure should address the animal welfare aspects of dog walking and seek ways to overcome cognitive dissonance in dog walking rather than intentions to exercise in general or walk the dog in particular (see Chatzisarantis and Hagger (2009) study on cognitive dissonance-related attitude change in the domain of exercise and Sniehotta, Presseau and Araujo-Soares’ (2014) criticisms of the Theory of Planned Behaviour).
Another factor requiring more attention in research on dog walking and animals in leisure is the impact of the animal’s uncooperative or difficult behaviour on the leisure experience and the likelihood that the experience will be repeated as a form of leisure. Canine behavioural problems were found to be associated with lack of enjoyment of dog walking. Unlike the weather, they are amenable to change but require the commitment of owners. A well-trained dog able to walk on lead without pulling or being distracted by surroundings or aggressive to other dogs and reliably coming when called if off lead, makes dog walking more enjoyable and of benefit for both parties (Dunbar 1999; Miller 2008). Walking with a well-behaved dog begins to match the definition of “leisure” rather than “chore”. Often these behavioural difficulties can be easily resolved (depending on how often the behaviour has been practised), although some dog owners may require help from a professional dog behaviourist or suitably qualified trainer. Enjoyable dog walking is then more likely to be undertaken more frequently. Given that half of the group who did not enjoy walking with their dog reported attachment scores matching or exceeding the mean attachment score, such owners may have the motivation to improve their dog’s behaviour when walking for their dog’s sake – if they could work out how. This process might require some form of targeted promotion and assistance.
Other research has found that unstructured exercise (also known as lifestyle-based activity) is more likely to be maintained over the long term than structured exercise programmes, such as going to the gym and attending formal classes (Sevick et al. 2000; Opdenacker et al. 2008; Opdenacker et al. 2011). Walking the dog is clearly a form of unstructured or lifestyle-based activity, whether it is casual leisure or a duty – 68 percent of respondents reported that they fitted dog walking in around their other commitments. In this light, we might expect that the unstructured nature of dog walking promotes long-term adherence and maintenance, which is certainly to both parties’ benefit. Some people prefer structured activities for their social support and motivation to commit (Beauchamp et al. 2007; Wilson et al. 2004) and ways to structure dog walking have been developed (see Johnson et al. 2011). Even arranging regular times to walk with other dog owners may be a sufficient structure for some people to participate in dog walking.
Most previous studies do not account for whether dog walking represents an intrinsic motivation (personally interesting and enjoyable) or an extrinsic motivation (to obtain outcomes separate from the behaviour itself) (Vallerand and Ratelle 2002) for dog owners. This distinction is important because research in health psychology suggests that while people are initially motivated by extrinsic factors when they begin regular exercise, intrinsic motives maintain it (Aaltonen et al. 2012). People with low levels of enjoyment and attachment and who do not walk their dogs daily could be seen as not intrinsically motivated to walk their dogs. Thus not only might they exercise less than they need to, but their dogs’ wellbeing may also be compromised.
Proponents of dog walking as a motivation for exercise are not necessarily advocating that people should acquire a dog to motivate them to exercise – in other words, viewing a dog as a means to an end, a tool like a piece of gym equipment – but note that it is the group of existing dog owners who never or rarely walk their dogs which needs to be encouraged (Bauman et al. 2001; Schofield et al. 2005; Cutt et al. 2008). In the interest of the dogs’ experience within human leisure, we must be careful not to encourage people who have little interest in dogs as companions to acquire a dog on the pretext of improving their own fitness. Focussing on the benefits of dogs for human exercise runs the risk of overlooking the other requirements of dog care, such as housing, socialising (with family members and other dogs), playing, grooming and feeding. People generally want dogs as companions because they have some affinity with these animals in general or want a relationship with them; this must be the motivation for having a dog in the first place, not the potential of the dog to motivate human owners to walk more. Even if the dog-human dyad is initially formed on the basis of the human party wanting a dog as a companion, this does not necessarily ensure the development of attachment (Westgarth, Christley and Christian 2014; also see Platt and Fletcher 2017).
Based on the results presented here, there appear to be four main groups of dog owners – those who are highly attached and walk their dogs frequently (i.e. daily or at least twice per week); those who are not as attached but nevertheless walk their dogs frequently; those who are highly attached but do not walk their dogs very often (or at all) and those who have low attachment and do not walk their dogs very often (or ever). The existence of the second of these groups suggests that some people do walk their dogs out of duty, not as leisure. While many dogs are happy to go for walks regardless of who the handler is and what their motivations and attitudes are, the existence of a bond or relationship (attachment) between the two can be the difference between a leisure experience or a chore for the human. Although some of the current literature accounts for the role of attachment, future research must consider both attachment and the role of dog behaviour in enhancing dog walking as a leisure experience.
Aaltonen, S., T. Leskinen, T. Morris, M. Alen, J. Kaprio, J. Liukkonen, and U. Kujala. 2012. “Motives for and Barriers to Physical Activity in Twin Pairs Discordant for Leisure Time Physical Activity for 30 Years.” International Journal of Sports Medicine 33(2): 157–163.
Anderson, D.C. 2007. Assessing the Human-Animal Bond: A Compendium of Actual Measures. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Animal Medicines Australia. 2016. “Pet Ownership in Australia: 2016 Report.” Accessed May 15, 2017. http://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/pet-report/.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011. “2011 Census of Population and Housing, Usual Residence.” www.abs.gov.au.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2016. “3218.0 – Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2015–16: Estimated Resident Population – Greater Capital City Statistical Areas.” Accessed March 31, 2017. www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/797F86DBD192B8F8CA2568A9001393CD?Opendocument.
Bauman, A.E., H. Christian, R. Thorpe, R. Macniven, R. Johnson, A. Beck, and S. McCune. 2011. “International Perspectives on the Epidemiology of Dog Walking.” In The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for People and Pets: Evidence and Case Studies, edited by R. A. Johnson, A.M. Beck, and S. McCune, 25–50. West Lafayette, IN: Indiana Purdue University Press.
Bauman, A.E., S.J. Russell, S.E. Furber, and A.J. Dobson. 2001. “The Epidemiology of Dog Walking: An Unmet Need for Human and Canine Health.” Medical Journal of Australia 175(11–12): 632–634.
Biddle, S.J., and N. Mutrie. 2007 Psychology of Physical Activity: Determinants, Wellbeing and Interventions. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bland, I., A. Guthrie-Jones, R. Taylor, and J. Hill. 2010. “Dog Obesity: Veterinary Practices’ and Owners’ Opinions On Cause and Management.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 94(3): 310–315.
Brajša-Žganec, A., M. Merkaš, and I. Šverko. 2011. “Quality of Life and Leisure Activities: How Do Leisure Activities Contribute to Subjective Wellbeing?” Social Indicators Research 102(1): 81–91.
Brown, S.G., and R.E. Rhodes. 2006. “Relationship Among Dog Ownership and Leisure-Time Walking in Western Canadian Adults.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30(2): 131–136.
Chatzisarantis, N.L.D., and M.S. Hagger. 2009. “Effects of an Intervention Based on Self-Determination Theory on Self-Reported Leisure-Time Physical Activity Participation.” Psychology & Health 24(1): 29–48.
Coble, T.G., S.W. Selin, and B.B. Erickson. 2003. “Hiking Alone: Understanding Fear, Negotiation Strategies and Leisure Experience.” Journal of Leisure Research 35(1): 1.
Coile, C. 2005. Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds. New York, NY: Barron’ Educational Series.
Coutts, C., T. Chapin, M. Horner, and C. Taylor. 2013. “County-Level Effects of Green Space Access on Physical Activity.” Journal of Physical Activity and Health 10(2): 232–240.
Cutt, H.E., B. Giles-Corti, M. Knuiman, and V. Burke. 2007. “Dog Ownership, Health and Physical Activity: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Health and Place 13(1): 261–272.
Cutt, H.E., B. Giles-Corti, L.J. Wood, M.W. Knuiman, and V. Burke. 2008. “Barriers and Motivators for Owners Walking Their Dog: Results from Qualitative Research.” Health Promotion Journal of Australia 19(2): 118–124.
Degeling, C., L. Burton, and G.R. McCormack. 2012. “An Investigation of the Association Between Socio-Demographic Factors, Dog-Exercise Requirements, and the Amount of Walking Dogs Receive.” Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 76(3): 235–240.
Downes, M.J., C. Devitt, M. Downes, and S. J. More. 2014. “Understanding the Context for Pet Obesity: Self-Reported Beliefs and Factors Influencing Pet Feeding and Exercise Behavior Among Pet Owners.” PeerJ PrePrints 2: e715v711. https://peerj.com/preprints/715v1.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2017.
Dunbar, I. 1999. Dog Behavior: An Owners Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet. New York, NY: Howell.
Epping, J.N. 2011. “Dog Ownership and Dog Walking to Promote Physical Activity and Health in Patients.” Current Sports Medicine Reports 10(4): 224–227.
German, A.J. 2006. “The Growing Problem of Obesity in Dogs and Cats.” The Journal of Nutrition 136(7): 1940S–1946S.
Giles-Corti, B., and R.J. Donovan. 2002. “The Relative Influence of Individual, Social and Physical Environment Determinants of Physical Activity.” Social Science and Medicine 54(12): 1793–812.
Gillison, F.B., M. Standage, and S.M. Skevington. 2006. “Relationships Among Adolescents’ Weight Perceptions, Exercise Goals, Exercise Motivation, Quality of Life and Leisure-Time Exercise Behavior: A Self-Determination Theory Approach.” Health Education Research 21(6): 836–847.
Groves, R.M. 2006. “Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 70(5): 646–675.
Higgins, J.W., V. Temple, H. Murray, E. Kumm, and R. Rhodes. 2013. “Walking Sole Mates: Dogs Motivating, Enabling and Supporting Guardians’ Physical Activity.” Anthrozoös 26(2): 237–252.
Johnson, R.A., C.A. McKenney, R. Johnson, A. Beck, and S. McCune. 2011. “ ‘Walk a Hound, Lose a Pound’: A Community Dog Walking Program for Families.” In The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for People and Pets: Evidence and Case Studies, edited by R. A. Johnson, A.M. Beck, and S. McCune, 89–104. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Johnson, R.A., and R.L. Meadows. 2010. “Dog-Walking: Motivation for Adherence to a Walking Program.” Clinical Nursing Research 19(4): 387–402.
Johnson, T.P., T.F. Garrity, and L. Stallones. 1992. “Psychometric Evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS).” Anthrozoös 5(3): 160–175.
Kanuk, L., and C. Berenson. 1975. “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review.” Journal of Marketing Research 12(4): 440–453.
Kelly, J.R. 2009. “Work and Leisure: A Simplified Paradigm.” Journal of Leisure Research 3: 439.
Kobelt, A.J., P.H. Hemsworth, J.L. Barnett, and G.J. Coleman. 2003. “A Survey of Dog Ownership in Suburban Australia – Conditions and Behavior Problems.” Applied Animal Behavior Science 82(2): 137–148.
Libby, T. 2009. High Energy Dogs.Neptune City, NJ: TFH Publications.
Lindsay, S.R. 2013. Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Adaptation and Learning. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Iowa.
Mannell, R.C. 2007. “Leisure, Health and Wellbeing.” World Leisure Journal 49(3): 114–128.
Marcus, D. A. 2012. “Why Walking Your Dog Is Great Exercise.” Accessed January 12, 2017. http://thebark.com/content/why-walking-your-dog-great-exercise.
Michael, Y.L., L.A. Perdue, E.S. Orwoll, M.L. Stefanick, and L. M. Marshall. 2010. “Physical Activity Resources and Changes in Walking in a Cohort of Older Men.” American Journal of Public Health 100(4): 654–660.
Miller, P. 2008. The Power of Positive Dog Training, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
Opdenacker, J., F. Boen, N. Coorevits, and C. Delecluse. 2008. “Effectiveness of a Lifestyle Intervention and a Structured Exercise Intervention in Older Adults.” Preventive Medicine 46(6): 518–524.
Opdenacker, J., C. Delecluse, and F. Boen. 2011. “A 2-Year Follow-Up of a Lifestyle Physical Activity Versus a Structured Exercise Intervention in Older Adults.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 59(9): 1602–1611.
PetMD. 2017. “Exercising with your dog 101.” Accessed May 15, 2017. www.petmd.com/dog/wellness/evr_dg_exercising_with_your_dog101.
Platt, L., and T. Fletcher 2017. “What ‘Walkies’ Says About Your Relationship With Your Dog.” Accessed April 11, 2017. http://theconversation.com/what-walkies-says-about-your-relationship-with-your-dog-71245.
Rooney, N., S. Gaines, and E. Hiby. 2009. “A Practitioner’s Guide to Working Dog Welfare.” Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 4(3): 127–134.
Roy Morgan Research. 2015. “Doggone It: Pet Ownership in Australia.” Finding No. 6272, Accessed March 28, 2017. www.roymorgan.com/findings/6272-pet-ownership-in-australia-201506032349.
RSPCA. 2017. “Can You Give Me Some Basic Advice On Caring For My New Dog?” RSPCA Australia Knowledge Base. Accessed May 15, 2017. http://kb.rspca.org.au/Can-you-give-me-some-basic-advice-on-caring-for-my-new-dog_20.html.
Sallis, J., King, A., Sirard, J., and Albright, C. 2007. “Perceived Environmental Predictors of Physical Activity Over 6 Months in Adults: Activity Counseling Trial.” Health Psychology 26(6): 701–709.
Schofield, G., K. Mummery, and R. Steele. 2005. “Dog Ownership and Human Health-Related Physical Activity: An Epidemiological Study.” Health Promotion Journal of Australia 16(1): 15–19.
Serpell, J. 1995. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sevick, M.A., A.L. Dunn, M.S. Morrow, B.H. Marcus, G.J. Chen, and S.N. Blair. 2000. “Cost-Effectiveness of Lifestyle and Structured Exercise Interventions in Sedentary Adults. Results of Project ACTIVE.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 19(1): 1–8.
Shalvi, S., F. Gino, R. Barkan, and S. Ayal. 2015. “Self-Serving Justifications Doing Wrong and Feeling Moral.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 24(2): 125–130.
Smith, G. 2008. “Does Gender Influence Online Survey Participation? A Record-Linkage Analysis of University Faculty Online Survey Response Behavior.” http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501717.pdf.
Sniehotta, F.F., J. Presseau, and V. Araújo-Soares. 2014. “Time to Retire the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Health Psychology Review 8(1): 1–7.
Stebbins, R. A. (1997). “Casual leisure: a conceptual statement.” Leisure Studies 16(1): 17-25.
Stebbins, R. A. (2000). “Obligation as an aspect of leisure experience.” Journal of Leisure Research 32(1): 152.
Stebbins, R.A. 2007. Serious Leisure: A Perspective for Our Time. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Thorpe, R.J., E.M. Simonsick, J.S. Brach, H. Ayonayon, S. Satterfield, T.B. Harris, M. Garcia, and S.B. Kritchevsky. 2006. “Dog Ownership, Walking Behavior, and Maintained Mobility in Late Life.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 54(9): 1419–1424.
Tsang, J-A. 2002. “Moral Rationalization and the Integration of Situational Factors and Psychological Processes in Immoral Behavior.” Review of General Psychology 6(1): 25–50.
Vallerand, R.J., and C.F. Ratelle. 2002. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: A Hierarchical Model.” Chap.2 In Handbook of Self-Determination Research, edited by E.L. Deci and R.M. Ryan, 37–63. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Van Stralen, M.M., H. de Vries, A.N. Mudde, C. Bolman, and L. Lechner. 2009. “Determinants of Initiation and Maintenance of Physical Activity Among Older Adults: A Literature Review.” Health Psychology Review 3(2): 147–207.
Warren, B.S., J.J. Wakshlag, M. Maley, T.J. Farrell, A.M. Struble, M.R. Panasevich, and M.T. Wells. 2011. “Use of Pedometers to Measure the Relationship of Dog Walking to Body Condition Score in Obese and Non-Obese Dogs.” The British Journal of Nutrition 106(S1): S85–S89.
Westgarth, C., R.M. Christley, and H.E. Christian. 2014. “How Might We Increase Physical Activity Through Dog Walking? A Comprehensive Review of Dog Walking Correlates.” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 11(1): 83.
Wilson, P.M., W.M. Rodgers, P.J. Carpenter, C. Hall, J. Hardy, and S.N. Fraser. 2004. “The Relationship Between Commitment and Exercise Behavior.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise 5(4): 405–421.
Yansaneh, I.S. 2003. “Construction and Use of Sample Weights.” Designing Household Surveys Samples: Practical Guidelines. Accessed October 21, 2016. https://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/demographic/meetings/egm/sampling_1203/docs/no_5.pdf.
