Next Article in Journal
A Dynamic Relationship between Environmental Degradation, Healthcare Expenditure and Economic Growth in Wavelet Analysis: Empirical Evidence from Taiwan
Next Article in Special Issue
Prevalence and Factors Associated with Thinness in Rural Polish Children
Previous Article in Journal
Understanding Open Defecation in the Age of Swachh Bharat Abhiyan: Agency, Accountability, and Anger in Rural Bihar
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Health Promoters Can Assess Capacity Building Processes in Setting-Based Approaches—Development and Testing of a Monitoring Instrument
Open AccessArticle

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

1
Department of Family & Consumer Studies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
2
Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(4), 1385; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041385
Received: 26 January 2020 / Revised: 18 February 2020 / Accepted: 19 February 2020 / Published: 21 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Collection Physical Activity and Public Health)
Few studies assess dog ownership and walking with both self-reported or perceived and audited or objective walkability and physical activity measures. Across two years, we examined both types of walkability and activity measures for residents living within 2km of a “complete street”—one renovated with light rails, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Audited walkability (Irvine–Minnesota Inventory) was more consistently related to dog ownership and walking groups than perceived walkability (Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale—Abbreviated). Self-reported leisure walking was much higher (289–383 min per week) among dog walkers than among other groups (100–270 min per week), despite no difference in accelerometer-measured light or moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Furthermore, the most powerful difference between groups involved single-family detached home residence, which was much lower among non-dog-owners (44%) than among non-dog-walkers or dog walkers (81% and 70%, respectively). Given discrepancies across walkability and activity measures, we recommend future use of walkability audits and objectively measured physical activity over the current emphasis on self-report measures. We also urge greater attention to increased densities of housing, which may negatively affect dog ownership levels unless compensating supports for dog ownership and walking are created by public health messaging, dog-friendly policies, and dog-friendly housing and community design. View Full-Text
Keywords: audited walkability; perceived walkability; physical activity; accelerometer; dog ownership; dog walking audited walkability; perceived walkability; physical activity; accelerometer; dog ownership; dog walking
MDPI and ACS Style

Brown, B.B.; Jensen, W.A. Dog Ownership and Walking: Perceived and Audited Walkability and Activity Correlates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041385

AMA Style

Brown BB, Jensen WA. Dog Ownership and Walking: Perceived and Audited Walkability and Activity Correlates. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(4):1385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041385

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brown, Barbara B.; Jensen, Wyatt A. 2020. "Dog Ownership and Walking: Perceived and Audited Walkability and Activity Correlates" Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, no. 4: 1385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041385

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop