Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 9 (5), e023000

Dog Ownership, the Natural Outdoor Environment and Health: A Cross-Sectional Study


Dog Ownership, the Natural Outdoor Environment and Health: A Cross-Sectional Study

Wilma L Zijlema et al. BMJ Open.


Objectives: Dog owners walking their dog in natural outdoor environments (NOE) may benefit from the physical activity facilitated by dog walking and from time spent in nature. However, it is unclear whether dog owners receive additional health benefits associated with having access to NOE above the physical activity benefit of walking with their dog. We investigated associations between dog ownership, walking, time spent in NOE and health and whether these associations differed among those with good and poor access to NOE and those living in green and less green areas.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting: The Positive Health Effects of the Natural Outdoor Environment in Typical Populations in Different Regions in Europe project.

Participants: n=3586 adults from Barcelona (Spain), Doetinchem (the Netherlands), Kaunas (Lithuania) and Stoke-on-Trent (UK).

Data collection and analysis: We calculated access to NOE with land maps and residential surrounding greenness with satellite data. Leisure time walking, time spent in NOE and general and mental health status were measured using validated questionnaires. Associations were estimated using multilevel analysis with a random intercept defined at the neighbourhood level.

Results: Dog ownership was associated with higher rates of leisure time walking and time spending in NOE (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54 and 2.37, 95% CI 2.02 to 2.79, respectively). These associations were stronger in those living within 300 m of a NOE and in greener areas. No consistent associations were found between dog ownership and perceived general or mental health status.

Conclusions: Compared with non-dog owners, dog owners walked more and spent more time in NOE, especially those living within 300 m of a NOE and in greener areas. The health implications of these relationships should be further investigated. In a largely physically inactive society, dog walking in NOE may be a simple way of promoting physical activity and health.

Keywords: epidemiology; mental health; public health.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.


Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of different buffer types and the distance to natural outdoor environments from a residential address.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 PubMed Central articles


    1. Schweizer C, Edwards RD, Bayer-Oglesby L, et al. Indoor time-microenvironment-activity patterns in seven regions of Europe. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2007;17:170–81. 10.1038/sj.jes.7500490 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, et al. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012;380:247–57. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet 2016;388:1311–24. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30383-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. McCormack GR, Shiell A. In search of causality: a systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011;8:125 10.1186/1479-5868-8-125 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet 2012;380:258–71. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources