This article was downloaded by: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.]
On: 25 March 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 909860371]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Human Dimensions of Wildlife
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713666717
Birds and Beaches, Dogs and Leashes: Dog Owners' Sense of Obligation to
Leash Dogs on Beaches in Victoria, Australia
Kathryn J. H. Williams a; Michael A. Weston b; Stacey Henry a; Grainne S. Maguire c
a
Melbourne School of Land and Environment, Department of Resource Management and Geography,
University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia b School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of
Science and Technology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia c Birds Australia, Carlton, Victoria,
Australia
Online Publication Date: 01 March 2009
To cite this Article Williams, Kathryn J. H., Weston, Michael A., Henry, Stacey and Maguire, Grainne S.(2009)'Birds and Beaches,
Dogs and Leashes: Dog Owners' Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches in Victoria, Australia',Human Dimensions of
Wildlife,14:2,89 — 101
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10871200802649799
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200802649799
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14:89–101, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1087-1209 print / 1533-158X online
DOI: 10.1080/10871200802649799
Birds and Beaches, Dogs and Leashes: Dog Owners’
Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches
in Victoria, Australia
1533-158X
1087-1209
UHDW
Human
Dimensions of Wildlife
Wildlife, Vol. 14, No. 2, January 2009: pp. 1–24
KATHRYN J. H. WILLIAMS,1 MICHAEL A. WESTON,2
STACEY HENRY,1 AND GRAINNE S. MAGUIRE3
Dog
K.
J. Owners’
H. Williams
Sense
et al.
of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
1
Melbourne School of Land and Environment, Department of Resource Management
and Geography, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
2
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology,
Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
3
Birds Australia, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
Domesticated dogs threaten the conservation of beach-nesting birds in Australia
through disturbance, and destruction of eggs and chicks. Leashing of dogs can
improve conservation outcomes, but few dogs are leashed on beaches. We surveyed
dog owners to explore their sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches. Dog owners
were more likely to feel obliged to leash their dog when they believed other people
expected dogs to be leashed, and when they believed their dog was a threat to wildlife
or people. Dog owners were less likely to feel obliged to leash their dog if they considered unleashed dog recreation to be important. Improved compliance may be achieved
through community-based approaches to foster social norms for dog control, tailoring
information products to emphasize the risk that all unleashed dogs may pose to beachnesting birds and raising awareness of designated off-leash exercise dog recreation
areas.
Keywords bird conservation, dog owners, obligation to leash, attitudes
Introduction
Dog walking is one of the world’s most popular recreational activities (Albert & Bulcroft,
1987; Banks & Bryant, 2007; Bayside City Council, 2006; Hart, 1995). A growing body
of evidence suggests that dog walking has deleterious ecological effects, including on
birds (Banks & Bryant 2007; Lenth, Knight, & Brennan, 2008). Many of Australia’s resident shorebirds breed on coasts, during times of the year when recreation including dog walking is most intense (Priest, Straw, & Weston, 2002; Weston & Elgar, 2007). Dogs can prey
upon, crush, and cause temporary abandonment of shorebird eggs and young (Maguire,
2008; Schulz, 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007; Weston, 2003). For threatened
This research was supported by Birds Australia’s “Coexistence between recreationists and
beach-nesting birds project,” funded by the Australian Government’s Natural Heritage Trust via the
Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority. The project was approved by the
University of Human Research Ethics Committee (Project 060481). The authors are grateful for
helpful comments of Jerry Vaske and two anonymous reviewers.
Address correspondence to Kathryn J. H. Williams, Melbourne School of Land and Environment, Department of Resource Management and Geography, 221 Bouverie Street, Parkville 3010,
Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
89
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
90
K. J. H. Williams et al.
beach-nesting birds such as the Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis in southeastern
Australia, management of dogs on beaches is critical for their conservation (Maguire,
2008; Schulz, 1992; Weston, 2003).
Despite the imperatives for bird conservation, most dogs on beaches remain unleashed
(82% of 2,847 dogs on Victorian beaches, 1994–2008; Weston & Maguire, 2008) and currently, compliance with dog regulations is the exception rather than the rule. For example,
of 693 dogs at Mornington Peninsula National Park, Victoria, 1991–1998, only 12% were
leashed in areas where leashing was required (Dowling & Weston, 1999). Management
authorities seek to improve compliance with dog regulations on sandy shores but this has
proven difficult. For example, with seven years of intense education, awareness campaigns,
and enforcement of leashing laws in one National Park, compliance peaked with only 22%
of dogs leashed (Dowling & Weston, 1999).
Although attitudes and actions of people are a major determinant of wildlife conservation (Manfredo & Dayer, 2004), little is known about why compliance with dog regulations is low. We know of only one study that addressed the issue of dog owners’ attitudes
toward protection of beach-nesting birds. Bridson (2000) interviewed visitors to beaches
in New Zealand; 42% of dog owners interviewed believed dogs should be allowed on
beaches, despite being aware that dogs posed a threat to beach-nesting birds. Views on
leashing of dogs were not explored. A better understanding of dog owners’ views on dog
management and leashing may provide insights that help improve compliance and conservation efforts for threatened beach-nesting birds.
Broader research on attitudes to wildlife conservation points to a range of attitudinal
factors that may explain low levels of compliance with dog regulations (McFarlane,
Stumpf-Allen, & Watson, 2007; Tarrant, Bright, & Cordell, 1997; Whittaker, Vaske, &
Manfredo, 2006).
Human dimensions research suggests value orientations are an important explanatory
factor in the relationship between people and wildlife (Manfredo & Daher, 2004; Tarrant
et al., 1997). This includes the relative importance given to protection and use of wildlife (Whittaker et al., 2006), or to anthropocentric and biocentric outcomes in relation
to wildlife (Bjerke & Kalternborn, 1999). Beliefs about costs and benefits of wildlife
(Kacsensky, Blazic, & Gossow, 2004), or about consequences of one’s own actions for
valued outcomes, are another important predictor of wildlife attitudes (Manfredo &
Daher, 2004). Beliefs may be moderated by knowledge about wildlife and its conservation (Tarrant et al., 1997). For example, Wilson and Tisdell (2005) revealed that public
support for conservation of different bird species depended on knowledge of the birds’
existence and status.
Research regarding environmentally significant behavior also identifies the importance of norms for environmentally significant action (see Vaske & Whittaker, 2004 for an
overview of approaches). Stern (2000), drawing on Schwartz (1977), suggests that
behavior is best predicted by personal norms for action (i.e., a sense of personal obligation to act in a given way). Consistent with human dimensions of wildlife conservation
research noted earlier, he demonstrates that these norms are activated by values, general
attitudes toward an action, and specific beliefs about consequences of the action for valued outcomes. Subjective social norms (beliefs about how others expect one to act) also
predict intentions for action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Although research into human
dimensions of wildlife has described social norms of acceptable management practices
(Vaske & Whittaker, 2004), to date there has been relatively little consideration of the
influence of subjective social norms in human dimensions of wildlife (Manfredo &
Dayer, 2004).
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
Dog Owners’ Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches
91
Both contextual (external) and attitudinal (internal) factors will influence environmentally significant behavior, and the specific factors that influence action will differ
across behavior types and settings (Gardner & Stern, 1996; Stern, 2000). The action of
interest in this research, leashing of dogs, is a very simple and low cost action although it
must be consistently repeated numerous times, and we would expect attitudinal factors to
have a greater influence on this action than external factors (after Stern, 2000). However,
there are a number of external factors that might influence leashing behavior. These
include presence of dog control laws and enforcement of these regulations. Regulatory
controls will vary across locations, and awareness of regulations might vary among dog
owners. It is therefore important to understand whether dog owners are aware of these
external factors.
This study investigates aspects of dog owners’ perspectives on the interactions
between dogs, birds, and beaches. In particular the study describes the importance
given by dog owners to wildlife and dog recreation benefits, as well as social norms
for leashing, beliefs about consequences of leashing dogs, and awareness of dog control regulation and enforcement in Victoria, southeastern Australia. It seeks to assess
how effectively these factors explain dog owners’ sense of obligation to leash their
dog on beaches.
Methods
We surveyed dog owners with access to Victorian beaches during June and July 2006.
We employed two sampling techniques: (a) intercept interviews with dog owners while
they were walking their dogs on beaches and (b) postal questionnaires mailed to households in coastal Victoria. Cluster sampling was used to select beaches for intercept interviews and townships for postal questionnaires. At the first stage of sampling, towns were
selected from each coastal Catchment Management Authority (CMA) area in Victoria.
CMAs are regionalized natural resource management areas, where a community-based
board is responsible for conducting integrated management activities. Victoria has five
coastal CMAs along its 2000 km of coastline, ranging from 1.3–2.5 million ha in
size.Within each coastal CMA, 1–4 towns were surveyed, with preference given to larger
coastal towns or suburbs and those near areas with known populations of beach-nesting
birds (Figure 1).
Interviews were conducted within 200 m of access points to popular beaches. Every
dog walker who passed by was invited to participate in the survey. Within each CMA, two
days were spent interviewing, between 0730 and 1800 hours, dependent on weather conditions. Postal questionnaires were distributed to houses in towns shown in Figure 1.
Between 150 and 600 questionnaires were delivered in each town, depending on town
size. All questionnaires were delivered to all houses on selected postal delivery routes
within 2 km of the foreshore.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire identified whether the respondent was a dog owner, and whether he or
she walked their dog on the beach. A total of 35 questions were asked, with identical
surveys used for postal and interview delivery. A series of questions were designed to
measure relevant attitude/norm variables (after Manfredo & Daher, 2004; Stern, 2000).
These included: (a) sense of obligation to leash one’s dog; (b) social norms for leashing;
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
92
K. J. H. Williams et al.
Figure 1. Locations of towns surveyed. All interviews were conducted within 200 m of access
points to beaches. Postal questionnaires were delivered to homes within 2 km of the shoreline.
(c) importance of wildlife protection and dog recreation on beaches; (d) beliefs about positive
and negative outcomes of dog leashing on beaches; and (e) awareness of information,
regulations and enforcement of dog control laws on beaches (Table 1). Response to most
questions was based on a 7-point scale (7 = strong agreement and 1 = strong disagreement).
Demographic details including age, sex, and residence status were obtained. The questionnaire was pre-tested with a convenience sample of 42 people, including both dog-owners
and non-dog owners. The questionnaire took about 10 minutes to complete (in either written
or verbal formats).
Participants
Interviews were conducted with 86 dog owners on Victorian beaches. An additional 623
respondents completed and returned postal questionnaires (26% of 2400 distributed).
Of these respondents, 299 were dog owners, resulting in a total of 385 responses from
dog owners. The response rate to the survey was not high, and this may be explained by
the likelihood that many homes in coastal areas are not permanently occupied (Victorian
Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment [DSE], 2005), a possible
reluctance of non-dog owners to participate in a survey primarily of interest to dog owners,
and possible reluctance of dog owners to participate in a study that they might perceive
could result in increased enforcement of leashing laws.
Although data were collected from both dog owners and non-dog owners, analysis is limited to responses of dog owners. Dog owners were more likely to be female
(65%) and older (52% of respondents were >50 years of age) than might be expected
from a general population sample (these patterns were also evident in our non-dog
owner sample). Although this is consistent with international trends in survey
response (de Leeuw & De Heer, 2002), it may also reflect the demographic characteristics of residents of coastal areas (DSE, 2005). Of dog owners, 91% were permanent
residents of the area where they were surveyed. The remainder were visitors or seasonal residents.
Dog Owners’ Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches
93
Table 1
Key concepts and the relevant statements on the questionnaire used to examine dog
owners’ attitudes toward leashing of dogs on beaches
Concept
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
Personal norm
Importance
of wildlife
protection
on beaches
Importance
of unleashed
exercise for dogs
Social norm for
leashing
Social norm
for unleashed
exercise for dogs
Awareness
of negative
consequences
of unleashed
dogs in general
Awareness
of negative
consequences
of own dog if
unleashed
Statements
• I feel obliged to leash my dog at the beach
• Wildlife conservation on beaches is
important.
• Human recreational activity
on beaches should be controlled
for the protection of wildlife.
• Human recreational activity should
be excluded from some Victorian
beaches during the beach-nesting
bird breeding season.
• Beaches are more important
for native wildlife habitat
than for human recreation.
• Dogs should be prohibited
from some beaches during the
beach-nesting bird breeding season.
• Dog access to beaches is important.
• Letting dogs run unleashed is an
essential form of exercise for dogs.
• Letting dogs run unleashed
is beneficial for dog health.
• People generally expect dogs
to be leashed on beaches.
• People generally think beaches
are a good place for their dogs
to run around unleashed.
• Unleashed dogs pose a threat
to beach-nesting birds.
• Unleashed dogs on beaches pose a
threat to human beach recreationists.
• If unleashed, my dog(s) would pose
a threat to beach-nesting birds.
• If unleashed, my dog(s) would
pose a threat to human beach
recreationists.
Reliability measure
Cronbach’s α = .78
Cronbach’s α = .76
N/A
N/A
Spearman’s ρ = .64
Spearman’s ρ = .64
Statistical Analysis
Some measures of attitudes relied on single statements, whereas others were based on
multiple questions. Grouping of statements and indicators of the inter-statement reliability
are provided in Table 1. Single measures were calculated for each concept by averaging
responses for each cluster of statements.
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
94
K. J. H. Williams et al.
Perceptions of the regulatory environment were measured using six questions. These
questions focused on respondents’ awareness of (a) regulations, (b) penalties, (c) off-leash
areas, (d) signs, (e) information, and (f) enforcement regarding dog management on beaches.
Responses to five of the six items were summed to provide an indication of awareness of
regulatory environment (1 = very low to 5 = very high awareness). Awareness of off-leash
dog recreation areas was excluded from this summary score because the response options for
this question (yes, no, unsure) did not readily contribute to such a score.
Most variables were not normally distributed so nonparametric correlations were used
to measure relationships between variables, and to test for differences in perceptions of
threats posed by respondent’s own dog and dogs in general. Multiple regression was used
to further understand relationships between variables. Testing of assumptions showed no
evidence of collinearity among factors. With the use of a p < .001 criteria for Mahalanobis
distance, no outliers among cases were found. A normal P-P plot of the regression
standardized residual showed no significant non-normality. A scatterplot of regression
standardized residuals against standardized predicted values indicated no nonlinearity but
likely heteroscedasticity. Various transformations of variables were explored to improve
the homoscedasticity of residuals, but these had little effect and variables were therefore
entered into regression without transformation. Presence of heteroscedasticity is likely to
weaken rather than invalidate the regression solution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Results
Almost all of the dog owners responding to the survey walked their dog on beaches: only
37 of the 385 respondents (10%) indicated they did not. This confirms that the sampling
approach was effective in accessing dog owners who take their dogs to beaches.
Overall, there was a moderately high level of agreement with the statement “I feel
obliged to leash my dog on beaches,” although there was some variation in responses
(Table 2). Approximately 28% of participants indicated some level of disagreement that
they felt obliged to leash their dog on beaches. An additional 17% indicated a neutral position on this statement, 22% reported weak agreement with the statement, whereas 33%
strongly agreed. Overall, respondents indicated moderately high levels of support for both
wildlife protection on beaches and dog recreation on beaches (Table 2). There is no significant correlation between these two variables (Table 3).
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for selected attitudes regarding wildlife protection and dog leashing
on beaches (7-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree)
Belief
I feel obliged to leash my dog at the beach
Importance of wildlife protection on beaches
Importance of unleashed exercise for dogs
Unleashed dogs in general have negative consequences
Own dog has negative consequences
People generally expect dogs to be leashed on beaches
People generally think beaches are a good place
for dogs to run around unleashed
n
Mean
SE
382
380
382
381
383
384
383
4.68
5.33
5.53
4.83
3.02
5.02
5.27
0.11
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.09
95
Negative
consequences
of unleashed
dogs in general
Importance
of wildlife
protection
on beaches
Importance
of unleashed
exercise
for dogs
Social norms
for leashing
Social norms
for unleashed
dog exercise
Attitudinal factor
.42*
−.02
−.34*
.52*
.23*
.59*
−.34*
.56*
.48*
−.43*
−.38*
−.29*
Negative
consequences
of own dog
if unleashed
B
0.08
−.04
.41*
−.30*
−.04
Negative
consequences
of unleashed
dogs in general
−.47*
Social norms
for leashing
Social norms
for unleashed
dog exercise
on beaches
.05
Importance
of unleashed
exercise
for dogs
.07
−.04
.37
−.20
.03
β
(Continued)
.08
.02
sr2 (unique)
Regression statistics
.22*
Obligation
to leash (DV)
Importance
of wildlife
protection
on beaches
Correlations (Spearman’s ρ)
Table 3
Multiple regression of selected attitudinal variables on obligation to leash dogs on beaches. Presented are the correlations between each variable,
unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standardized regression coefficients (β), and semi-partial correlations (sr2)
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
96
*p < .001.
Negative
consequences
of own dog
if unleashed
Awareness
of regulation,
information and
enforcement
Attitudinal factor
.20*
.04
.49*
.04
Obligation
to leash (DV)
Importance
of wildlife
protection
on beaches
.38*
.05
−.19*
Social norms
for leashing
−.38*
Importance
of unleashed
exercise
for dogs
.00
−.35*
Social norms
for unleashed
dog exercise
on beaches
Correlations (Spearman’s ρ)
Table 3
(Continued)
.03
.54*
Negative
consequences
of unleashed
dogs in general
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
−.01
Negative
consequences
of own dog
if unleashed
−.05
.23*
B
.03
sr2 (unique)
Intercept = 3.28
R2 = .46
Adjusted R2 = .45
R = .68*
−.02
.22
β
Regression statistics
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
Dog Owners’ Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches
97
There was a moderate level of agreement that dogs in general pose threats to humans
and beach-nesting birds (Table 2). Respondents indicated little agreement that their own
dog would pose a threat to humans or beach-nesting birds if unleashed. In general, respondents considered their own dog to be much less of a threat to wildlife and humans than
they considered dogs in general (Wilcoxon z = –14.12, p < .01). When asked about a series
of bird-dog interactions, the percentage of people who considered the interaction to have a
“lasting negative impact” decreased considerably with the type of interaction. Most participants (84%) believed that when a “dog chases a bird but does not catch it” there would be
a lasting negative impact for the bird. Smaller percentages of participants believed this
would be true if a “dog barks at a bird” (63%) or if a “dog is within 50 metres of a bird”
(51%). Only 18% of respondents agreed there would be lasting negative impacts for a bird
if the dog was “within 200 metres of the bird.”
There was a moderately high level of agreement among participants that people generally expect dogs to be leashed on beaches (Table 2) and with the statement that “people
generally think beaches are a good place for their dog to run around unleashed.” These
two social norms appear contradictory, and were negatively correlated (Table 3).
In general, most respondents were aware of dog control laws, and of penalties for
breaches of these laws (Table 4). Few had been provided with information about the
effects of dogs on beach-nesting birds, and few had seen by-law enforcement officers
present at the beach. About a third of respondents were uncertain whether off-leash dog
recreation areas were available in their locality.
A standard multiple regression was performed with obligation to leash as the dependent variable and seven independent factors: (a) social norms for leashing, (b) social
norms for unleashed exercise of dogs on beaches, (c) beliefs about the importance of wildlife protection on beaches, (d) beliefs about the value of unleashed exercise for dogs,
(e) beliefs about negative consequences of unleashed dogs in general, (f) beliefs about
negative consequences of own dog if unleashed, and (g) awareness of external controls
(e.g., regulation, information, and enforcement).
Table 4
Dog owners’ awareness of selected aspects of dog control
Yes
Question
Are you aware of any dog control regulations at beaches in
your area?
Have you been provided with information regarding dogs
and beach-nesting birds?
Have you observed any signs displaying dog leashing laws?
Have you seen any by-law enforcement officers at the
beaches where you walk your dogs?
Are you aware that penalties apply for failing to comply
with dog regulations?
Are there any designated off-leash areas for dogs in this
beach area?*
No
n
%
n
%
369
96
14
4
118
31
267
69
336
107
88
28
47
278
12
72
361
94
22
6
136
58
100
42
*149 participants were “unsure” of whether there was any designated off-leash area and are not
included in these percentages.
98
K. J. H. Williams et al.
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
A standard linear regression model accounted for 45% of the variability in obligation
to leash (F 7, 359 = 43.91, p < .001; Table 3). The size and direction of relationships measured suggest that people are more likely to feel obliged to leash their dog on beaches if
they believe other people expect them to leash their dog, and if they believe their own dog
will have negative consequences (for birds or other people) if unleashed. People are less
likely to feel obliged to leash their dog if they strongly believe in the benefits of unleashed
exercise for dogs. Of these variables, beliefs about social norms for leashing are the most
important, as indicated by the squared semi-partial correlations.
A number of other factors correlate significantly with obligation to leash including
(a) beliefs about the importance of wildlife protection on beaches, (b) social norms
for unleashed exercise of dogs, and (c) beliefs about negative consequences of unleashed
dogs in general (Table 3). However, these factors did not contribute significantly to the
regression.
Discussion
The finding that 33% of participants felt strongly obliged to leash their dog on beaches is
somewhat higher than might be expected based on estimates of dogs observed to be
leashed during field studies (Weston & Maguire, 2008). Although leashing rates were not
quantified in this study, it is likely that some participants feel an obligation to leash their
dog on beaches but do not actually put this into practice. Personal norms do not always
translate into consistent behavior because external factors may prevent their expression
(Stern, 2000). Other possible explanations warrant consideration. For example, it is possible that some participants exaggerated their support for leashing to present themselves in a
positive light, or that some participants interpreted the question with regard to social
norms for leashing rather than personal expectations of themselves.
A number of attitudinal factors may discourage leashing of dogs. The first of these is
the value orientations of participants. Our findings suggest that, on average, both wildlife
protection and unleashed dog recreation on beaches are moderately important to dog owners.
This suggests that at least some dog owners see no conflict between these outcomes. Our
analysis suggests that dog owners’ intention to leash is better predicted by their support
for unleashed recreation than by their beliefs about wildlife protection. This suggests that
while wildlife protection is important to dog owners, greater importance is given to the
benefits of unleashed exercise for dogs.
A second barrier to compliance with leashing regulations concerns dog owners’
understanding of the impacts of dogs on beach-nesting birds. Although there was general
recognition that unleashed dogs may have a negative impact on beach-nesting birds, there
was poor understanding of specific dog behaviors that might threaten birds. Each of the
specific bird–dog interactions presented to participants (chasing, barking, 50 m, and 200 m
proximity) were considered by bird specialists to generally have negative impact for
beach-nesting birds. This is true even for the least proximate interaction (Page, Warriner,
Warriner, & Halbeisen, 1977; Rodgers & Smith, 1997; Yalden & Yalden, 1990), which
only 18% of participants considered to have a lasting negative consequence for birds. Less
than a third of participants reported they had been provided with information about the
threats that dogs pose to beach-nesting birds. It is possible that continued distribution of
well-targeted information may improve compliance in future.
A third obstacle to dog leashing concerns a general disbelief among dog owners’ that
their own dog might have a negative impact that they consider to be true of dogs in general.
This distinction between beliefs about general and personal impacts is consistent with
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
Dog Owners’ Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches
99
findings about other environmental perceptions. For example, landholders considered soil
salinity to be a more significant problem on neighboring farms than on their own, even
where physical indicators suggested the impact was equivalent or greater (Vanclay & Cary,
1989; Wilkinson & Cary, 1993). Strong emotional bonds with dogs (Salmon & Salmon,
1983) may prevent dog owners from attributing negative behaviors to their own dogs.
Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1975) suggests people may create plausible but
untrue rationalizations for information that conflicts with a deeply held belief. This is
illustrated by comments made to the interviewer by several dog owners, who asserted that
their dog was different and “wouldn’t hurt a fly.”
The findings suggest some strategies to encourage leashing of dogs on beaches. The
strongest predictor of an obligation to leash was beliefs about social norms for leashing.
This suggests an important strategy for encouraging leashing of dogs on beaches is the
establishment or reinforcement of social norms; an example of such a change is evident
among many dog-walkers in Australia who now routinely collect feces left by their dogs.
McKenzie-Mohr (2000) notes that employing social norms can encourage behavior
change. This may be most effectively established through community-based approaches,
involving personal contacts preferably with other dog owners. Similarly, research on managing depreciative behaviors in recreational settings advocates management of social
norms through modelling of desired behavior and clear communication of rules and
expectations (Knopf & Andereck, 2004).
Most communication efforts regarding dogs and beach-nesting birds already emphasize
that all dogs may be a threat to birds (Birds Australia, 2006), but there is a need for greater
innovation in communication to overcome emotional resistance to recognizing the threat
one’s own dog poses. A key to this may be pointing out the threat posed by behaviors that
most people would consider to be acceptable and typical of well-behaved dogs, such as a
dog merely running along the upper beach without visibly responding to birds. Similarly,
building on social norm approaches, communication should provide examples of “good
dog owners” who leash their dog on beaches or choose alternative locations for unleashed
dog exercise. Wherever possible, communication should be designed to appeal to the
value dog owners place on unleashed recreation for dogs (Schulz & Zelezny, 2000). The
benefits of unleashed recreation should be acknowledged, and alternative locations for
recreation should be provided and promoted.
Although awareness of external regulations was not a significant predictor of obligation
to leash, it is likely that contextual factors will continue to shape social norms for leashing
(Knopf & Andereck, 2004). Although most participants were aware of regulations and the
presence of penalties for breaches of these regulations, the lack of effective enforcement
of these regulations suggests that these external factors are currently quite weak. Stern (2000)
notes that behavior is best predicted by attitudes when associated contextual controls are
weak. Research on management of depreciative behavior suggests that direct contact with
relevant agency personnel is a very effective means of influencing behavior (Knopf &
Andereck, 2004). Strengthening these controls, particularly by providing effective enforcement, is also likely to be effective in encouraging leashing of dogs on beaches.
Future applied research is warranted on the issue of promoting compliance with
leashing laws among dog owners. One interesting experimental study would involve
manipulating management efforts at different beaches, and measuring the resultant compliance with leashing laws. It would be helpful to compare the utility of approaches such
as stronger enforcement, stronger communication of social norms (e.g., through on-site
role models), and provision of alternative off-leash recreation sites. Such a study would
enable beach managers to derive optimum strategies to improve compliance with leashing
100
K. J. H. Williams et al.
laws, thereby promoting the evolution of social norms, and maximizing the opportunity
for coexistence between dog walkers and beach-nesting birds.
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Albert, A., & Bulcroft, K. (1987). Pets and urban life. Anthrozoös, 1(1), 9–25.
Banks, P. V., & Bryant, J. B. (2007). Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds
from natural areas. Biology Letters, 3, 611–613.
Bayside City Council (2006). Review of dog off-leash areas, July. Melbourne, Victoria: Bayside
City Council.
Birds Australia (2006). Birds and beaches, dogs and beaches. Melbourne, Victoria: Birds Australia.
Bjerke, T., & Kalternborn, B. (1999). The relationship of ecocentric and anthropocentric motives to
attitudes towards large carnivores. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 415–421.
Bridson, L. (2000). Minimising visitor impacts on threatened shorebirds and their habitats. Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 301. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
de Leeuw, E., & de Heer, W. (2002). Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and
international comparison. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & J. A. Little (Eds.),
Survey nonresponse (pp. 41–54). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dowling, B., & Weston, M. A. (1999). Managing a breeding population of the Hooded Plover Thinornis
rubricollis in a high-use recreational environment. Bird Conservation International, 9, 255–270.
Festinger, L. (1975). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. (1996). Environmental problems and human behaviour. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Hart, L. A. (1995). Dogs as human companions: A review of the relationship. In J. A. Serpell (Ed.),
The domestic dog. Its evolution, behaviour and interaction with people (pp. 161–178). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kaczensky, P., Blazic, M., & Gossow, H. (2004). Public attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus
arctos) in Slovenia. Biological Conservation, 118, 661–674.
Knopf, R. C., & Andereck, K. L. (2004) Managing depreciative behavior in natural settings. In
M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, & P. Brown (Eds.), Society and natural
resources: A summary of knowledge (pp. 305–314). Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho.
Lenth, B., Knight, R., & Brennan, M. (2008). The effects of dogs on wildlife communities. Natural
Areas Journal, 28(3), 218–227.
Maguire, G. S. (2008). A practical guide to managing beach-nesting birds in Australia. Melbourne,
Victoria: Birds Australia.
Manfredo, M., & Dayer, A. (2004). Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human–wildlife
conflict in a global context. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9, 317–328.
McFarlane, B., Stumpf-Allen, C., & Watson, D. (2007). Public acceptance of access restrictions to
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) country. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 283–295.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based
social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 543–554.
Page, G. W., Warriner, J. S., Warriner, J. C., & Halbeisen, R. M. (1977). Status of the Snowy Plover
on the northern California coast. Part I: Reproductive timing and success. Sacramento: California
Department of Fish and Game Nongame Wildlife Investigations.
Priest, B., Straw, P., & Weston, M. A. (2002). Shorebird conservation in Australia. Wingspan,
12(4), 1–32.
Rodgers, J. A., & Smith, H. T. (1997). Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25(1), 139–145.
Salmon, P. W., & Salmon, I. M. (1983). Who owns who? Psychological research into the human–pet
bond in Australia. In A. H. Katcher & A. M. Back (Eds.), New perspectives on our lives with
companion animals (pp. 244–265). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Downloaded By: [Williams, Kathryn J. H.] At: 23:39 25 March 2009
Dog Owners’ Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches
101
Schulz, M. (1992). Hooded Plover—Flora and fauna guarantee action statement No. 9. Melbourne,
Victoria: Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (2003). Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with
American values. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 126–136.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.)., Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York: Academic Press.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Tarrant, M., Bright, A., & Cordell, H. K. (1997) Attitudes towards wildlife species protection: Assessing moderating and mediating effects in the value-attitude relationship. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 2(2), 1–20.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2007). Recovery plan for the pacific coast population of the
Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). Sacramento, CA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Vanclay, F., & Cary, J. (1989). Farmers’ perceptions of dryland salinity. Melbourne, Victoria:
University of Melbourne, School of Agriculture and Forestry.
Vaske, J. J., & Whittaker, D. (2004). Normative approaches to natural resources. In M. J. Manfredo,
J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, & P. Brown (Eds.), Society and natural resources: A summary
of knowledge (pp. 283–294). Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho.
Victorian Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2005). Coastal
spaces inception report—Demographic background. Victorian Government. Melbourne, Victoria:
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
Weston, M. A. (2003). Managing the Hooded Plover in Victoria: A review of existing information.
Parks Victoria Technical Series No. 4. Melbourne, Victoria: Parks Victoria.
Weston, M. A., & Elgar, M. A. (2007). Responses of incubating Hooded Plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) to disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research, 23(3), 569–576.
Weston, M. A., & Maguire, G. S. (2008). Observations of dog walking at Hooded Plover breeding
territories. Unpublished raw data.
Whittaker, D., Vaske, J., & Manfredo, M. (2006). Specificity and the cognitive hierarchy: Value
orientations and the acceptability of urban wildlife management actions. Society and Natural
Resources, 19, 515–530.
Wilkinson, R., & Cary, J. (1993). Monitoring soilcare in North West Victoria. Melbourne, Victoria:
University of Melbourne, School of Agriculture and Forestry.
Wilson, C., & Tisdell, C. (2005). Knowledge of birds and willingness to support their conservation:
An Australian case study. Bird Conservation International, 15, 225–235.
Yalden, P. E., & Yalden, D. W. (1990). Recreational disturbance of breeding Golden Plovers Pluvialis
apricarius. Biological Conservation, 51, 243–262.