Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 21;17(4):1385.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041385.

Dog Ownership and Walking: Perceived and Audited Walkability and Activity Correlates

Free PMC article

Dog Ownership and Walking: Perceived and Audited Walkability and Activity Correlates

Barbara B Brown et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .
Free PMC article


Few studies assess dog ownership and walking with both self-reported or perceived and audited or objective walkability and physical activity measures. Across two years, we examined both types of walkability and activity measures for residents living within 2km of a "complete street"-one renovated with light rails, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Audited walkability (Irvine-Minnesota Inventory) was more consistently related to dog ownership and walking groups than perceived walkability (Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale-Abbreviated). Self-reported leisure walking was much higher (289-383 min per week) among dog walkers than among other groups (100-270 min per week), despite no difference in accelerometer-measured light or moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Furthermore, the most powerful difference between groups involved single-family detached home residence, which was much lower among non-dog-owners (44%) than among non-dog-walkers or dog walkers (81% and 70%, respectively). Given discrepancies across walkability and activity measures, we recommend future use of walkability audits and objectively measured physical activity over the current emphasis on self-report measures. We also urge greater attention to increased densities of housing, which may negatively affect dog ownership levels unless compensating supports for dog ownership and walking are created by public health messaging, dog-friendly policies, and dog-friendly housing and community design.

Keywords: accelerometer; audited walkability; dog ownership; dog walking; perceived walkability; physical activity.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Similar articles

See all similar articles


    1. McConnell A.R., Brown C.M., Shoda T.M., Stayton L.E., Martin C.E. Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2011;101:1239–1252. doi: 10.1037/a0024506. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zilcha-Mano S., Mikulincer M., Shaver P.R. Pets as safe havens and secure bases: The moderating role of pet attachment orientations. J. Res. Personal. 2012;46:571–580. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.005. - DOI
    1. Cutt H., Giles-Corti B., Knuiman M., Burke V. Dog ownership, health and physical activity: A critical review of the literature. Health Place. 2007;13:261–272. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.01.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bauman A.E., Russell S.J., Furber S.E., Dobson A.J. The epidemiology of dog walking: An unmet need for human and canine health. Med. J. Aust. 2001;175:632–634. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2001.tb143757.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. ASPCA The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Pet Statistics. [(accessed on 20 February 2020)]; Available online:

Publication types