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

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