Exploring the Inclusive Potential of Pet Parks From the Perspective of Spatial Justice: Hong Kong's Experience and Implications

Abstract

As social and economic dynamics continue to evolve and the demand for companionship increases, pet ownership has become an increasingly popular lifestyle choice. Pet parks, as a new form of urban public space, are gaining significant attention. This study, grounded in the theory of spatial justice, employs a combination of questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to evaluate four representative pet parks in Hong Kong, China. It explores how pet parks, as inclusive green infrastructure in high-density environments, contribute to urban community well-being and broader spatial justice. The study reveals the conflicts between pet owners and non-pet owners regarding the rights to use public spaces, examining how to guarantee the spatial rights of specific groups while avoiding harm to others. The findings indicate that green space availability, sociability and participation, walkability, safety, and flexibility in pet parks play a positive role in achieving urban spatial justice. However, pet parks also face challenges related to social exclusion and safety, requiring a balance between promoting community integration and ensuring public safety. This study offers valuable insights for the development of pet parks, the creation of vibrant and diverse public spaces, and the promotion of harmonious human-animal environments in cities across China and other Asian countries.

● Applies the spatial justice theoretical framework to the study of pet parks in an Asian city for the first time

● Explores the contribution of pet parks as inclusive green infrastructure in high-density environments to urban community well-being and spatial justice

● Points out that the frequency of pet park use is significantly correlated with its proximity, accessibility, affordability of use, and daily usage duration

● Highlights the green space availability, sociability and participation, walkability, safety, and flexibility in pet parks as factors conducive to realizing urban spatial justice

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Pet Park / Green Space / Public Space / Spatial Justice / Inclusivity / Hong Kong

1 Introduction

Shifting socio-economic trends and an increasing desire for companionship have propelled pet ownership into a burgeoning lifestyle choice^[1]. The past decade has witnessed a substantial surge in pet ownership across Asian countries, including China, Singapore, Japan, and Republic of Korea^[2]. By 2024, the global dog population is projected to reach 900 million and continue growing^[3].

This global urban phenomenon of rising pet ownership has heightened the demand for services and facilities that support human-animal coexistence^[4]. Amid escalating concerns over global aging, "pet-friendly" environments have also emerged as a crucial factor in developing age-friendly, healthy cities and promoting active aging^[5][6]. Dog ownership, once primarily a private affair, has evolved into a more public behavior necessitating support from shared spaces^[7]. Thus, it is crucial to reassess the intricate relationships between humans, animals, and the environment, and to incorporate these considerations into urban design, cultivating resilient and sustainable cities^[7][8].

Over the past few decades, many local policies worldwide have actively responded to such needs at the planning level. In 1979, the world's first pet park was introduced into the North American urban landscape^[2], and this concept gradually spread to cities across Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. In Asia, for instance, the pet economy has flourished in recent years, with a rise in pet-friendly services and infrastructure (such as pet parks, pet grooming, pet training schools, and veterinary hospitals). Among these, pet parks have emerged as the fastest-growing types of shared landscape infrastructure^[9]. These novel urban public spaces are considered innovative, scientifically grounded, and effective in reconciling conflicts between pet owners and non-owners^[7], fostering a harmonious environment for human-pet coexistence^[10].

2 Literature Review

2.1 The Rise of Pet Parks

Pet ownership encompasses a wide variety of animals, ranging from common companions such as dogs, cats, fish, and birds to less conventional choices like lizards. Pet parks, in this context, can be conceptualized as purposefully designed outdoor spaces with a certain scale, catering to the recreational needs of this broad spectrum of animal companions^①. While some pet parks exist as standalone projects, the majority are integrated within existing urban green spaces. These enclosed yet publicly accessible areas provide a safe environment for pets to roam freely off-leash, facilitating exercise and social interaction for both animals and their human companions^[2]. These shared spaces also foster trust among pet owners, catalyze community engagement, and strengthen social bonds between residents, thereby creating a novel form of public space^[11][12]. Furthermore, pet parks challenge anthropocentric urban paradigms by establishing what can be termed a "canine heterotopia"—a space that embodies the concept of a more-than-human world^[13][14]. Within these environments, pets can exhibit their natural behaviors, effectively sharing the urban experience with their human counterparts.

① This study focuses on pet parks specifically designed for dogs; therefore, the term "pet park" in the following text refers to dog gardens.

While global planning guidelines offer some direction for pet park design and planning—addressing aspects such as human and pet spaces, shelter facilities, seating, greenery, ecology, and paving quality^{[4][7][15][16]}—the spatial layout and design of pet parks vary significantly across different contexts. In Western countries, pet parks typically feature expansive grassed areas of approximately one acre (4,000 m²), complemented by owner rest areas, shaded zones, and picnic facilities^[15][17]. Eastern European pet parks are primarily designed for pet training, incorporating obstacle courses for pet-human interaction and minimal seating^[14]. In China, Hong Kong's pet parks present yet another model, characterized by fenced enclosures with double-gate systems to prevent pet escapes. These parks often include dedicated recreational facilities and resting lawns for pets, alongside essential amenities such as dog excreta collection bins, hand-washing facilities, and drinking fountains (Fig.1). Recognizing the growing demand for diverse public spaces and the potential to enhance residents' quality of life and social inclusion, other Chinese cities have recently begun planning and constructing pet parks.

Fig.1 A typical pet park in Hong Kong, providing facilities for pet entertainment, drinking, and excreta collection.

Full size|PPT slide

While pet parks are increasingly becoming a focal point in public discourse, empirical research on their planning, design, and utilization remains notably limited^[18], particularly within the Asian context. Existing urban planning research predominantly explores the potential public benefits of these spaces. Studies indicate that pet owners' journeys to and from pet parks contribute significantly to the physical and mental well-being of diverse demographic groups, with particular benefits observed in children and the elderly^[19][20]. Furthermore, these spaces have been shown to facilitate social engagement among individuals with cognitive impairments^[21]. The presence of animals, including birds and dogs, enhances the attractiveness of these parks, potentially encouraging physical activities even among non-pet owners^[22]. The accessibility and proximity of pet parks to residential areas emerge as critical factors influencing their usage frequency and public perception^[23]. These spaces play a pivotal role in fostering social interactions among residents^[24], with pet owners demonstrating a higher propensity to engage with public spaces compared with non-pet owners^[11]. Moreover, pet parks cultivate unique social dynamics, where users often interact with each other, actively participate in the stewardship and maintenance of these shared spaces^[11], and develop a profound sense of place attachment^[1][11].

2.2 Pet Parks and Spatial Justice

Urban spatial inequality manifests in multifaceted forms. Contemporary research predominantly emphasizes distributive justice, addressing the inequitable allocation of urban spatial resources, spatial differentiation, and the inadvertent clustering of demographic groups in specific locales^[25]. Edward W. Soja propounded a vision of spatial justice that advocated for diverse social groups to engage freely and dynamically in the production and consumption of space under relatively equal conditions, thereby safeguarding the exercise of spatial rights^[26]. This conceptualization of spatial justice complements and extends notions of distributive justice, the urbanization of social justice, and Henri Lefebvre's work on "the right to the city."^[27]

Broadly conceived, spatial justice aims to promote the inclusivity and accessibility of public spaces for all residents^[28]. In the context of public spaces, the spatial justice performance extends beyond equitable distribution to encompass the functionality and inclusivity of spaces at a local scale, emphasizing the capacity of public spaces to meet diverse group needs, particularly those of marginalized populations^[29]. The authors previously developed a research framework for evaluating spatial justice performance in urban public open spaces, comprising five dimensions: access and management, sociability and diversity, demand and provision, social stratum and information, and social inclusion^[29]. They posit that optimizing spatial justice performance hinges on enhancing spatial accessibility and proximity, fostering community connections, improving social inclusivity, and enriching social interaction^[29][30]. A holistic consideration of these factors facilitates the creation of truly universal public spaces that transcend individual socio-economic constraints^[30]. Applying this theory to pet parks, especially given scarce urban land resources, necessitates examining their potential as open, inclusive public spaces and the impact of their spatial characteristics on the social environment, with particular attention to their usability across all social groups. While investigating how pet parks accommodate and expand the spatial rights of pet owners, it is crucial to explore strategies for mitigating potential infringements on non-pet owners' rights and actively enhancing their benefits. This study pioneers the application of the spatial justice theoretical framework to outdoor public green spaces, specifically pet parks. It aims to broaden the theory's explanatory power in specialized space categories, elucidate the justice tensions and integration potential of pet parks in urban contexts, and provide theoretical underpinnings for policy formulation.

While urban studies concerning animal spaces and geography are proliferating, there remains a notable paucity of relevant research in East Asia^[31]. Moreover, investigations into the relationship between pet park design, spatial characteristics, and spatial inclusivity are particularly scarce^[4]. Such existing research often overly focuses on exploring the relationship between space and direct users (mainly pet owners), potentially overestimating the inclusivity of pet parks as new urban public spaces for broader social groups. In addition, the inflexible design of pet parks in some cities restrict their ability to accommodate a variety of activities, thereby limiting their potential contribution to public interests, particularly in terms of advancing broader urban spatial justice^[32].

2.3 Social Impact of Pet Parks on Communities

Pet parks not only serve as spaces for interaction and relaxation of pets and their owners, but also exert profound social impacts on communities. Scholars in animal geography and critical pet studies conceptualize pet parks as urban spatial practices that continuously shape human-animal relationships within social contexts^[33][34]. Daniel Matisoff et al. have explored pet parks as part of the "new commons, " viewing them as embodiments of local resources that residents collectively utilize, enhance, manage, and preserve^[11]. Public participation in the rule-making and maintenance of pet parks represents a localized collective practice and place-making process. This engagement fosters the generation of places with shared information and norms^[35], and correlates significantly with increased collective actions and a heightened sense of community belonging^[11].

However, tensions between pet parks and other urban public spaces are emerging. Akin to specialized areas like skate parks, pet parks are enclosed spaces with highly dedicated design purposes, primarily for pet exercise and interaction. Their openness and accessibility often hinge on the localized practices of a select group of users^[36][37]. For example, research indicates that fences and gates, as fundamental spatial features of pet parks, mirror the physical demarcations of gated communities. These boundaries, ostensibly for safety and reputation maintenance, implicitly embed exclusionary mechanisms in their design^[14]. This approach potentially contradicts the core principle of public spaces being "open and freely accessible to all, " potentially eroding residents' trust in park management and local authorities^[11][37]. Due to the frequent utilization by certain residents, often those of higher socioeconomic status, and their pets^[35], pet parks may disproportionately serve specific social groups (pet owners) and species (predominantly dogs), while overlooking the needs of other community members. This trend risks diminishing the public nature of these spaces and may adversely impact the well-being of some residents^[4][26].

Beyond evident spatial segregation, the emergence and proliferation of pet parks underscore the commercialization and privatization of urban spaces mediated by pets. This phenomenon aligns closely with the development of neoliberal spaces, reflecting users' gender, class, racial characteristics, and privileges^[38][39]. Research on the formation of dog-landscapes in Chicago of the USA illuminates their profound impact on social structures. These landscapes have become integral to middle- and upper-class lifestyles, often resulting in the displacement of economically disadvantaged residents from their original communities^[40]. Paradoxically, in the process of gentrification, while affluent groups ostensibly advocate for community diversity, they simultaneously establish usage norms for pet parks. This practice effectively delineates the "insiders" of these spaces, leading to the marginalization of economically disadvantaged minority groups and those perceived as "outsiders"^[35].

In cities with limited green spaces, the planning and governance of urban public areas present significant challenges^[41]. The alignment of enclosed green spaces designated for specific uses with the diverse interests of communities in high-density urban environments remains an unexplored area of research^[14][35]. Moreover, questions arise regarding the capacity of these novel public spaces to accommodate flexible use, foster inclusivity, and contribute to urban sustainable development through the creation of shared green spaces^[4][40]. Consequently, it is crucial to develop a conceptual framework for inclusive infrastructure, grounded in spatial justice theory, to evaluate the potential of pet parks in providing accessible and open public spaces that cater to a wider urban demographic.

Although relevant research has constructed a theoretical framework of spatial justice to explore Hong Kong's public spaces^[42], studies focusing on pet parks under this theoretical framework are still in their early stage. Given that Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated areas with the scarcest public spaces in the world, this study chose Hong Kong's pet parks as the research object. Through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, it collected and analyzed the views of pet park users on the following questions. 1) How do social and spatial factors work together to foster inclusive use of pet parks? And 2) how can the role and function of pet parks be reconceptualized within the theoretical framework of spatial justice? The aim of this study is to examine how pet parks contribute to the understanding of public spaces, analyze their potential in advancing broader spatial justice performance in urban environments, and investigate how pet parks can effectively address diverse social groups' needs and foster social inclusion while maintaining their primary function as human-animal interaction spaces.

3 Research Methods

3.1 Sample Selection

Hong Kong, with its exceptionally high population density and compact built environment^[43], faces intense competition for urban public space usage^[44]. The city serves as an exemplary case for examining the spatialization of pet-keeping in high-density urban settings^[45]. In 2018, Hong Kong reported approximately 220,000 pet dogs, with ownership concentrated among households earning HK＄40,000 or more per month, reflecting the high costs of pet keeping^[46]. By May 2024, Hong Kong had established 52 pet parks and 175 inclusive parks for pets^[47][48]. Nevertheless, the majority of public spaces in Hong Kong continue to prohibit dogs, and public transportation systems, including buses and subways, only allow guide dogs.

This study examined four pet parks, including Ma On Shan Sai Sha Road Pet Garden (MOS), Butterfly Valley Road Pet Garden (BVR), Sung Wong Toi Playground (SWT), and the Central Section of the Central and Western District Promenade (CWP). These sites represent diverse community types within Hong Kong, encompassing new towns, older dense low-income neighborhoods, recently developed areas within the historic downtown, and the central business district (Tab.1). The selected parks, chosen for their popularity, ensure the collection of sufficient user data for analysis.

Tab.1 Basic information of the sample pet parks

Park name	Completion time	Area (m2)	Location/park type	District	Number of pet parks in the district	Surrounding community type	Main public facilities	Opening hours
MOS	2009	2,360	Beneath the overpass	Sha Tin District	1	New town	Seating, dog excreta collection bin, dog toilet, lawn for dogs	All day
BVR	2014	7,000	Beneath the overpass	Sham Shui Po District	3	Older dense urban neighbourhood	Temporary restroom, pet activity area, pet play facility, dog excreta collection bin	7:00 ~ 24:00
SWT	2019	1,880	Within an urban park	Kowloon City District	4	Recently developed neighbourhood	Drinking fountain, wash basin, dog excreta collection bin	All day
CWP	2014	4,700	Within an urban park	Central and Western District	5	Central business district	Restroom, hand washing facility, pavilion, dog excreta collection bin, lawn	All day

3.2 Questionnaire Design

Survey questionnaires can effectively analyze pet parks' contributions to urban sharing practices, social capital enhancement, and increased participation^[11]. In this study, the questionnaire was based on variables from existing research^[29] and expands the spatial justice conceptual framework by incorporating multiple variables essential for exploring the characteristics of shared practices in pet parks. The questionnaire comprised two parts. The first part includes 47 questions across 12 dimensions: accessibility and proximity (A), walkability (B), community sharing (C), sociability (D), diversity (E), safety (F), maintenance (G), management (H), participation (I), amenities and facilities (L), design (M), and spatial provision (N). Each question corresponds to a certain variable within the corresponding dimension. For instance, question C3, "If I look at people in this park, I recognize someone I did not expect to meet here," was to assess the "user diversity" variable in the "community sharing" dimension; question H2, "When using this park, I do not feel constrained because of strict rules," was to evaluate the "intensity of rules and regulations" variable in the "management" dimension; question I2, "I hold others accountable for park rules," was to assess the "voluntarily helping monitor others' compliance with park rules" variable in the "involvement" dimension^[49]. To quantify respondents' agreement levels, the questionnaire employed a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The second part of the questionnaire included 21 questions designed to understand pet park users' usage habits, purposes, motivations, and socio-demographic characteristics. Following the initial questionnaire design, the research team conducted a pre-test with 10 volunteers to evaluate the questionnaire's format, question wording, and effectiveness of the overall design. Based on the feedback, the questionnaire was refined and finalized. To accommodate different language preferences, the questionnaire was available in both Chinese and English.

3.3 Data Collection

This study required questionnaire respondents to have visited their evaluated pet park at least once in the past three months and to be familiar with its surroundings. Pet ownership was not a prerequisite for survey participation. The questionnaire survey was conducted from January to April 2022. While a small number of questionnaires were distributed on-site, the majority were distributed online, following common practices in similar research^[12]. Participants who indicated willingness for follow-up interviews were contacted via telephone.

To expand the data collection scope, social media platforms were utilized to recruit participants from local interest groups typically joined by community members and pet owners. Completing the questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes. All respondents provided informed consent before beginning the answering. The study posed no risks, participation was voluntary, and no incentives were offered. Semi-structured telephone interviews, conducted in Chinese or English, lasted about 15 minutes for each. Interviewees shared their motivations for using the evaluated pet park and provided detailed insights into the parks' accessibility and diversity. Interview questions included "Do you think this park is enjoyed by people who are different from you (younger/older or from different ethnicity)?" and "Who benefits from Dog parks?" With consent, all the interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then translated into English. The research team then discussed the interview content, reached a consensus on the conveyed meanings, and categorized the results thematically.

3.4 Data Analysis

This study employed exploratory factor analysis to further analyze the data collected from the first part of the questionnaire. This method categorizes variables that best explain each relative dimension based on their inter-correlation, reducing a large set of variables to a smaller number of core factors^[50]. Initially, Pearson Correlation analysis was conducted using BIM SPSS Statistics 26.0 software. Concurrently, Cronbach's alpha, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, and Bartlett's test were used to ensure data reliability and validity. All variables were then transformed and standardized to enhance the comparability and reliability of results. To balance the distribution of variables across factors, principal component analysis was employed to extract the main factors^[29], with Equamax selected as the rotation method. Only variables with factor loadings above 0.6 were included in the final analysis. The number of factors was determined using a scree plot^[29], ensuring both analytical accuracy and clear factor interpretation.

4 Research Results

4.1 Characteristics of Respondents

The survey received 156 valid responses (53 from MOS, 32 from BVR, 47 from SWT, and 24 from CWP). The majority of respondents were female (73.1%), Chinese nationals (91.7%), aged 30 ~ 39 (27.6%), and professionals (30.8%). Most lived in private housing (65.4%), held tertiary education or above (68.6%), reported monthly household incomes exceeding HK＄40,000 (35.9%), and were childless (76.9%). Pet owners constituted 64.1% of respondents.

The socio-demographic characteristics varied significantly across the four parks. SWT had the highest proportion of pet owners at 87.2%. BVR and CWP had larger proportions of young people aged 18 ~ 21 (37.5% and 45.8%, respectively). BVR, located in one of Hong Kong's lowest average income areas (Sham Shui Po), had a higher proportion of respondents with monthly household incomes below HK＄10,000 (25.0%). CWP attracted more younger adults (18 ~ 29 years old, 66.6%) and respondents from diverse cultural backgrounds (4.2% from other Asian regions, 8.3% from Europe and America, and 16.7% from other regions). Additionally, CWP had the highest proportion of respondents living in public housing (45.8%). A total of 46 respondents voluntarily participated in the semi-structured interviews: 9 from MOS (No. 1 ~ 9), 15 from BVR (No. 10 ~ 24), 10 from SWT (No. 25 ~ 34), and 12 from CWP (No. 35 ~ 46). Among them, 16 were non-pet owners (unless otherwise specified, interviewees mentioned in subsequent text were pet owners).

4.2 Pet Park Usage Preferences

Questionnaire results revealed that most pet park users walked to the park (66.7%), visited 2 ~ 5 times weekly (46.8%), and stayed for over 45 minutes per visit (28.2%). Due to the limited number of dog-friendly public spaces, pet owners often travelled considerable distances to reach pet parks—with a median journey of 1.6 km and an average of 5.4 km. Besides, other 14.1% used the subway and 10.3% drove.

Visiting patterns varied across parks. CWP saw higher usage on weekdays (20.8%), while SWT was used on both weekdays and weekends by 61.7% of respondents. The duration of visits also varied, with 66.0% of MOS users staying 30 minutes or less, while 53.2% of SWT users stayed for more than 45 minutes.

Correlation analysis revealed significant relationships between park usage frequency (O2) and factors such as park proximity influencing residential choice (A1, r = 0.289, p = 0.000), park accessibility (A2, r = 0.287, p = 0.000), affordability (A5, r = 0.216, p = 0.000), and daily usage duration (O4, r = 0.276, p = 0.000). Although frequent users often visited the park alone or with pets (O3, r = 0.838, p = 0.000), interview results indicated that pet owners had strong social motivations, including exercising, socializing their pets, and interacting with other owners. Park selection often depended on proximity to home and the availability of dog-friendly spaces. Interviews with SWT users showed that for 6 out of 10 interviewees, it was the only nearby pet park, while 7 chose it for its spaciousness, allowing dogs to run freely. Non-pet owners cited convenient transportation and proximity as primary reasons for using the park, with some pet enthusiasts attracted because "there are many dogs to watch."

4.3 Factor Analysis Results

The analysis yielded a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.933, indicating high internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire^[51]. The KMO value of 0.864, coupled with the Bartlett's test result (χ² = 4,284.138, df = 1,128, p = 0.000), confirmed the reliability and appropriateness of the factor analysis method^[52]. Exploratory factor analysis distilled the questionnaire variables into a clear five-factor structure, collectively explaining approximately 50% of the total variance. The first factor accounted for over 28% of the total variance, with each subsequent factor explaining at least 4%. Factor loadings for selected variables ranged from 0.600 to 0.785, falling within acceptable parameters^[53]. Through comparison with existing urban design considerations^[29], the factors were identified as "green space availability," "sociability and participation," "walkability," "safety," and "flexibility."

5 Inclusive Potential of Pet Parks From a Spatial Justice Perspective

The questionnaire data analysis results indicated that the five factors mentioned above had significant impacts on the spatial justice performance of pet parks. The semi-structured interview results further elaborated the findings of the factor analysis (Tab.2).

Tab.2 Conceptual framework for understanding the inclusive potential of pet parks from the perspective of spatial justice

Factor	Variable	Factor loading	Eigenvalue	Percentage variance (%)
Green space availability	M4: I feel there is enough grass area in this park	0.726	13.793	28.735
	L6: I think there are enough public facilities (e.g., toilets, vending machines)	0.710
	N2: I am satisfied with the number of open public spaces in this district	0.679
	L4: I think there is enough space for active recreational activities (e.g., doing exercise, dancing)	0.675
	N1: I am satisfied with the size of this park	0.655
	N3: I am satisfied with the size of the open public spaces in this district	0.650
	M3: I feel there are enough large trees in this park	0.603
Sociability and participation	D1: I interact with other visitors in this park	0.785	3.685	7.677
	C3: If I look at people in this park, I recognize someone I did not expect to meet here	0.733
	C4: If there are problems in this park, I am willing to help resolve conflicts	0.700
	I2: I hold others accountable for park rules	0.692
	D2: I think this space favors social interaction	0.616
Walkability	B2: I think the walking experience to reach this park is pleasant	0.684	2.425	5.053
	B1: I can easily walk from my starting place to this park	0.679
Safety	F2: I feel safe using this space at night	0.747	2.150	4.479
	G1: I think this park is well maintained	0.653
	M6: I feel there is enough lighting when it is dark in this park	0.637
	G2: I feel the facilities (e.g., public furniture, landscape) are in good conditions	0.605
Flexibility	H2: When using this park, I do not feel constrained because of strict rules	0.650	1.914	3.988
	L2: I think this park provides adequate seating and public furniture	0.623

5.1 Green Space Availability

The "green space availability" factor encompasses variables related to amenities and facilities, design, and spatial provision. Key variables cover the provision of exercise spaces (L4) and basic service facilities (L6), both considered essential for the park's inclusive potential and justice expression. Satisfaction with green space elements, particularly "enough grass area" (M4) and "enough large trees" (M3), emerged as crucial. Additional variables reflect satisfaction with fair spatial allocation, including park size (N1) and the number (N2) and size (N3) of community public spaces.

CWP, which allows pets throughout and operates 24 hours, exemplifies these factors. Interviewees reported engaging in diverse activities in such larger pet parks, including picnicking and jogging with pets, and elderly visitors exercising with companions. Some interviewees, constrained by work schedules, frequently used the park at night (No. 41 interviewee). SWT users predominantly valued the park's greenery, noting its positive impact on the entire community. Even first-time visitors expressed that "everyone would like this green park" (No. 27 interviewee).

Some interviewees noted an evolution in human-pet relationships from ownership to companionship, emphasizing the need for shared outdoor spaces and pet acceptance (No. 2 interviewee, non-pet owner). Several interviewees also considered pet parks to be important, but highlighted the scarcity of suitable pet spaces in Hong Kong (No. 28 and No. 37 interviewees). While 81.40% of questionnaire respondents supported expanding pet-friendly public spaces, there was interviewee advocating for animal rights and the health benefits of dog parks for both pets and owners (No. 6 interviewee). Meanwhile, a minority (3.85%) of respondents opposed expanded pet access, emphasizing the need for increased awareness of pet-related disturbances. Some other interviewees raised concerns about hygiene, pet control, and public acceptance, suggesting that pet access should be contingent on owners maintaining cleanliness (No. 4 interviewee, non-pet owner).

5.2 Sociability and Participation

Sociability and participation factor includes variables of community sharing, sociability, and participation. It examines the park's capacity to stimulate and promote communication and interaction among users (C3, D1, D2), as well as users' sense of belonging and responsibility towards the park (C4, I2).

Consistent with previous research findings, this study confirmed pet parks' effectiveness in connecting community groups. These spaces gathered users with a shared interest in pets within a small public space, encouraging spontaneous social interactions, fostering a sense of community belonging, and strengthening the bonds and commitments between pet owners. Correlation analysis revealed that users who chose to live near the park (A1, r = 0.301, p = 0.000), visited frequently (O2, r = 0.173, p = 0.031), helped resolve conflicts (C4, r = 0.472, p = 0.000), ensured compliance with park regulations (I2, r = 0.392, p = 0.000), and participated in maintenance (I3, r = 0.274, p = 0.001) experienced a stronger sense of community (C2). Additionally, encountering users from diverse geographical or cultural backgrounds (E1) correlated with increased sense of community (C2, r = 0.424, p = 0.000) as well.

Interview results further illuminated these findings. CWP users were described as "very diverse," including local office workers and foreigners (No. 36 interviewee). Some interviewees also noted that pet dogs often serve as catalysts for social interactions between neighbors and strangers, including those who do not own pets (No. 11 interviewee, non-pet owner). SWT emerged as a popular venue for pet exercise and training, as well as parent-child interaction (No. 31 interviewee, non-pet owner). An interviewee of MOS, a local cleaner and non-pet owner, viewed the pet park as a respite from daily routine. However, No. 31 interviewee also perceived pet parks as potentially exclusive spaces primarily benefiting pet owners, despite their seemingly open nature.

5.3 Walkability

Walkability factor reflects users' walking experience to and from the park, including whether it is accessible on foot (B1) and whether the walking experience is positive (B2).

As mentioned earlier, pet park users highly valued the proximity of the park to their residences and the walking convenience. They often perceived the park's spatial boundaries (such as enclosed or not) based on its location and design. At the same time, given the restrictions on carrying pets on public transportation in Hong Kong, the opportunity to walk to a pet park becomes even more important. No. 32 interviewee noted that SWT, adjacent to major residential areas, had high walking accessibility and was a relatively large pet park rare in the surrounding area. Questionnaire results also showed that MOS and BVR, located in slightly remote areas, had relatively lower walkability, increasing visitors' cost of using pet parks. However, some interviewees pointed out that BVR was large in scale and with convenient parking facilities, which compensated for its lack of walking accessibility (No. 12 interviewee).

5.4 Safety

Safety factor includes variables related to design, safety, and maintenance, with particular emphasis on the park's night lighting (M6) and the perceived safety of nighttime users (F2), i.e., whether the space provides a safe environment, especially when used at night. Variables related to the safety of public service facilities in the park include users' satisfaction with park maintenance (G1) and the operational status of public facilities (G2).

Previous studies have highlighted that pet parks offer positive social externalities in reducing community crime rates and enhancing community safety^[2]. Active users of pet parks naturally provide surveillance of the space, acting as "eyes on the street."^[54] In pet parks, the directly perceived safety is influenced by two key relationships—between humans and pets, and between humans. For example, interview results showed that "dog barking may affect families who want to picnic in the park, making them feel uncomfortable," and some citizens who fear dogs may "not necessarily know how to interact with dogs," thus "dislike animals," leading to further human-pet conflicts (No. 30 interviewee). No. 22 interviewee, a non-pet owner, believed that the society should increase public education efforts to raise pet owners' awareness and ability to manage pets in public places to avoid accidents; and this improvement should be built upon a foundation of well-supplied and maintained pet facilities, "especially the maintenance of (venue) cleanliness."

Correlation analysis results showed that respondents' perceived safety (F2) was significantly correlated with expectations that other visitors comply with park regulations (I2, r = 0.273, p = 0.001), active participation in park maintenance (I3, r = 0.259, p = 0.001), and social interactions within the park (D1, r = 0.290, p = 0.000). This implied that for pet parks, safety was linked to the social capital built through active user engagement. Meanwhile, this study found that although homeless people were potential users of pet parks, the inclusivity of these spaces for them was relatively limited. Questionnaire statistics showed that about 32.1% of respondents felt uncomfortable seeing homeless people in pet parks, while about 25.0% held a neutral attitude. Safety issues are closely related to the establishment of social boundaries, which determine who is welcome and who belongs in public places. The potential sense of insecurity associated with the presence of homeless people might be mitigated through effective park maintenance (G1, r = 0.284, p = 0.000) and the upkeep of facilities (G2, r = 0.223, p = 0.005)^[55].

5.5 Flexibility

Flexibility factor includes two variables of management and amenities and facilities, namely whether the pet park enforces strict usage regulations that make people feel constrained (H2) and whether it provides adequate recreational facilities (L2).

The design of pet parks, especially the provision of recreational facilities such as seating, is very important for park users. For example, No. 9 interviewee noted that the park offered very limited recreational facilities, lacking tables, chairs, and rain shelters, with only the small grassy area receiving positive feedback. No. 44 interviewee pointed out that the lack of recreational facilities meant that, aside from pet owners, the park could only attract elderly people playing chess during off-peak hours. It is worth noting that most interviewees agreed that more pet-friendly facilities should be added.

6 Conclusions

Pet parks, as an emerging form of urban public space, are garnering increasing attention globally, particularly in high-density Asian cities. This study, grounded in the spatial justice theoretical framework, employed questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to examine how pet parks in Hong Kong's high-density environment function as inclusive green infrastructure, enhancing urban community well-being and contributing to broader spatial justice. The research expanded the explanatory power of spatial justice theory in specific public spaces, focusing on the trade-offs between pet owners and non-owners regarding public space usage rights. It explored the interest-driven nature and complexity of urban public space allocation, examining how to protect specific groups' spatial rights while safeguarding others' interests. The findings reveal that greater green space availability, sociability and participation, walkability, safety, and flexibility of pet parks are conducive to realizing urban spatial justice.

By frequently and regularly sharing specific spaces and through a shared care for pets, pet park users can gather and engage in informal social activities. Community awareness, participation in public spaces, sense of integration, and responsibility are crucial for the construction of inclusive green infrastructure. Although this sense of community promotes the accumulation of social capital, it may also have negative impacts on pet parks, such as increased pressure within the community and excessive concentration of power which weaken the inclusivity of the parks. Moreover, pet parks are facing challenges of social exclusion and safety issues, requiring a balance between promoting community integration and ensuring public safety.

The study advocates for a holistic approach to the spatial planning of pet parks, emphasizing public space multi-functionality and addressing diverse social group needs to reduce isolation, especially given limited urban green space resources. It recommends expanding public spaces for trained pets and their owners, and leveraging community organizations and professional trainers to promote inter-group understanding and create safe, civilized pet park environments. This research offers valuable theoretical and policy insights for Hong Kong and other Asian cities in formulating policies of human-animal interaction spaces. It also provides experience for Chinese cities initiating pet park development, guiding the creation of diverse, vibrant public spaces and harmonious human-pet environments.

Finally, given that this study primarily focuses on Hong Kong, applying the findings to other cities will require careful consideration on local contexts. Additionally, as data collection relied on retrospective self-reported questionnaires, and online surveys may have sample bias, future research should expand the sample size and types, taking into account the concerns of non-pet park users and the feedback of pet park users, especially focusing on the opinions and needs of special groups like the elderly. Future research directions could include analyzing the social structures of communities near pet parks and conducting comparative studies on pet park governance based on social network data, to further explore their potential as inclusive green infrastructure that fosters social integration.

References

[1] Armbruster, K. (2019). Dogs, Dirt, and Public Space. In: J. Sorenson & A. Matsuoka (Eds.), Dog's Best Friend? Rethinking Canid-Human Relations (pp. 113–134). McGill-Queen's University Press.

[2] Zhu, Z. , Liu, W. , Zhang, Y. , Xie, Y. , & Gao, S. (2015) Research progress of dog-park and planning enlightenment. Planners, 31 ( S2), 280– 284.

[3] Cosgrove, N. (2024, June 24). How many dogs are there? US & worldwide statistics 2024. Dogster.

[4] Nast, H. J. (2006) Critical pet studies?. Antipode, 38 ( 5), 894– 906.

[5] Toohey, A. M. (2018). Carving out a place for "pets" within the age-friendly agenda: A case study exploring the public health implications of companion animal relationships for older adults who are aging-in-place[Doctoral dissertation]. University of Calgary.

[6] Toohey, A. M. , Hewson, J. A. , Adams, C. L. , & Rock, M. J. (2017) When 'places' include pets: Broadening the scope of relational approaches to promoting aging-in-place. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 44 ( 3), 119– 145.

[7] Wu, S. (2015). Research in the perspective of pet dog breeding demand community planning and design[Mater's thesis]. Hunan University.

[8] Wang, R. , Zhang, L. , Zhou, S. , Yang, L. , & Lu, Y. (2024) The availability and visibility of animals moderate the association between green space and recreational walking: Using street view data. Journal of Transport & Health, ( 34), 101744.

[9] Spire Research and Consulting. (2018). The pet economy boom in Asia.

[10] Zhang, W. , & Guo, J. (2010) Dog parks—A vigorous paradise for pet dogs in city. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 26 ( 4), 71– 76.

[11] Matisoff, D. , & Noonan, D. (2012) Managing contested greenspace: Neighborhood commons and the rise of dog parks. International Journal of the Commons, 6 ( 1), 28– 51.

[12] Graham, T. M. , & Glover, T. D. (2014) On the fence: Dog parks in the (un)leashing of community and social capital. Leisure Sciences, 36 ( 3), 217– 234.

[13] Nayar, P. K. (2019). Ecoprecarity: Vulnerable Lives in Literature and Culture. Routledge.

[14] Włodarczyk, J. (2021) "My dog and I, we need the park": More-than-human agency and the emergence of dog parks in Poland, 2015–2020. Cultural Geographies, 28 ( 3), 495– 511.

[15] Holderness-Roddam, B. (2020) Dog park design, planning and management. Australian Planner, 56 ( 1), 48– 57.

[16] Schlereth, N. (2016) An examination of dog parks and recommendations for development in the community. Journal of Facility Planning, Design, and Management, 4 ( 1), 13– 24.

[17] Cutt, H. , Giles-Corti, B. , Knuiman, M. , & Burke, V. (2007) Dog ownership, health and physical activity: A critical review of the literature. Health & Place, 13 ( 1), 261– 272.

[18] Gómez, E. , & Malega, R. (2020) Dog park use: Perceived benefits, park proximity, and individual and neighborhood effects. Journal of Leisure Research, 51 ( 3), 287– 307.

[19] Veitch, J. , Christian, H. , Carver, A. , & Salmon, J. (2019) Physical activity benefits from taking your dog to the park. Landscape and Urban Planning, ( 185), 173– 179.

[20] White, M. P. , Elliott, L. R. , Wheeler, B. W. , & Fleming, L. E. (2018) Neighbourhood greenspace is related to physical activity in England, but only for dog owners. Landscape and Urban Planning, ( 174), 18– 23.

[21] Bould, E. , Callaway, L. , Warren, N. , Lalor, A. , & Burke, J. (2023) Pilot of a dog-walking program to foster and support community inclusion for people with cognitive disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 45 ( 3), 469– 482.

[22] Toohey, A. M. , & Rock, M. J. (2011) Unleashing their potential: A critical realist scoping review of the influence of dogs on physical activity for dog-owners and non-owners. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, ( 8), 46.

[23] Lee, H. S. , Shepley, M. , & Huang, C. S. (2009) Evaluation of off-leash dog parks in Texas and Florida: A study of use patterns, user satisfaction, and perception. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92 ( 3–4), 314– 324.

[24] Middle, I. (2020) Between a dog and a green space: Applying ecosystem services theory to explore the human benefits of off-the-leash dog parks. Landscape Research, 45 ( 1), 81– 94.

[25] Staeheli, L. A. , Mitchell, D. , & Nagel, C. R. (2009) Making publics: Immigrants, regimes of publicity and entry to 'the public'. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27 ( 4), 633– 648.

[26] Soja, E. W. (2016). Seeking Spatial Justice. Social Science Academic Press (China).

[27] Lefebvre, H. (2022). The Production of Space. The Commercial Press.

[28] Jian, I. Y. , Chan, E. H. , Xu, Y. , & Owusu, E. K. (2021) Inclusive public open space for all: Spatial justice with health considerations. Habitat International, ( 118), 102457.

[29] Jian, I. Y. , Luo, J. , & Chan, E. H. (2020) Spatial justice in public open space planning: Accessibility and inclusivity. Habitat International, ( 97), 102122.

[30] Jian, Y. , Luo, J. , Wang, A. , Chen, H. , Chen, W. , & Siu, K. (2023) The interplay between privately-owned public space and spatial justice: The case of Hong Kong. Urban Planning International, 38 ( 3), 73– 98.

[31] Ho, J. , Hussain, S. , & Sparagano, O. (2021) Did the COVID-19 pandemic spark a public interest in pet adoption?. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, ( 8), 647308.

[32] Iojă, C. I. , Rozylowicz, L. , Pătroescu, M. , Niţă, M. R. , & Vânau, G. O. (2011) Dog walkers' vs. other park visitors' perceptions: The importance of planning sustainable urban parks in Bucharest, Romania. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103 ( 1), 74– 82.

[33] Hubbard, P. , & Brooks, A. (2021) Animals and urban gentrification: Displacement and injustice in the trans-species city. Progress in Human Geography, 45 ( 6), 1490– 1511.

[34] Ouyang, Y. , & Sun, X. (2022) Nature and tolerance: Case studies of urban pet park outside Mainland CN and Their enlightenment. Guangdong Landscape Architecture, 44 ( 4), 65– 70.

[35] Tissot, S. (2011) Of dogs and men: The making of spatial boundaries in a gentrifying neighborhood. City & Community, 10 ( 3), 265– 284.

[36] Mori, K. , Rock, M. , McCormack, G. , Liccioli, S. , Giunchi, D. , Marceau, D. , Stefanakis, E. , & Massolo, A. (2023) Fecal contamination of urban parks by domestic dogs and tragedy of the commons. Scientific Reports, 13 ( 1), 3462.

[37] Trouille, D. (2014) Fencing a field: Imagined others in the unfolding of a neighborhood park conflict. City & Community, 13 ( 1), 69– 87.

[38] Byrne, J. , & Wolch, J. (2009) Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 33 ( 6), 743– 765.

[39] Fleischmann, L. (2023) More-than-human political geographies: Abjection and sovereign power. Political Geography, ( 107), 102949.

[40] Nast, H. J. (2012). Puptowns and Wiggly Fields: Chicago and the Racialization of Pet Love in the Twenty-First Century. In: R. Schein (Ed.), Landscape and Race in the United States (pp. 237–249). Routledge.

[41] Schipperijn, J. , Ekholm, O. , Stigsdotter, U. K. , Toftager, M. , Bentsen, P. , Kamper-Jørgensen, F. , & Randrup, T. B. (2010) Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95 ( 3), 130– 137.

[42] Tang, B. S. , & Wong, S. W. (2008) A longitudinal study of open space zoning and development in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87 ( 4), 258– 268.

[43] The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2023). Average living space per person.

[44] Tang, B. S. (2017) Is the distribution of public open space in Hong Kong equitable, why not?. Landscape and Urban Planning, ( 161), 80– 89.

[45] Yau, Y. , & Chiu, S. M. (2015) The economics of the right to keep a dog: A case study of a private housing complex in Hong Kong. Society & Animals, 23 ( 4), 343– 362.

[46] Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2019). Thematic household survey report No. 66.

[47] Leisure and Cultural Services Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (n. d.). Dog garden/pet garden.

[48] Leisure and Cultural Services Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (n. d.). Inclusive park for pets.

[49] Low, S., & Iveson, K. (2019). Propositions for More Just Urban Public Spaces. In: K. Bisho & N. Marshall (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of People and Place in the 21st-Century City (pp. 135–154). Routledge.

[50] Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2015). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM's SPSS (6th ed.). Taylor and Francis.

[51] Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill.

[52] Yung, E. H. K. , Zhang, Q. , & Chan, E. H. (2017) Underlying social factors for evaluating heritage conservation in urban renewal districts. Habitat International, ( 66), 135– 148.

[53] Kang, J. , & Zhang, M. (2010) Semantic differential analysis of the soundscape in urban open public spaces. Building and Environment, 45 ( 1), 150– 157.

[54] Jacobs, J. (1992). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage.

[55] Rybka, A. , & Brudnicka, A. (2018) Architecture in the process of social inclusion of homeless. E3S Web of Conferences, ( 49), 00093.

Acknowledgements

· "A Research on Small-Medium Healthy City Space Collaborative Optimization and Governance Model," National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52078447) · "Nature-Based Solutions for Promoting Environmental Stewardship in Public Open Spaces: Adapting to Emerging Activity Trends," Departmental Special Project Research Grant of the Department of Social Science and Policy Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong (No. 0400I) · "Ageing Playfully: Public Spaces, Playfulness, and Well-being for Older Adults in Densely Populated Cities," Departmental Start-Up Research Grant of the Department of Social Science and Policy Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong (No. RG 60/2023-2024R) · Eric C. Yim Endowed Professorship (No. 8.73.09.847K)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

© Higher Education Press 2024