Three Things to Know
Despite the pandemic-driven surge in dog ownership, urban policies largely treat dogs as nuisances to be controlled rather than companions to be thoughtfully integrated. To explore this, researchers followed 14 dog owners in London, uncovering their daily experiences and points of tension.
They found that despite some formal policies, owners navigate a patchwork of inconsistent guidance, demanding individual interpretation and negotiation. Access to housing, public spaces, and transport proved uneven, often hinging on staff interpretation and the owner’s confidence in asserting their rights.
This lack of clarity results in unequal treatment and restricted access for vulnerable or marginalized individuals to essential housing, services, and public spaces. The researchers advocate not for more segregated dog parks or green spaces, but for a broader reconsideration of how dogs are woven into the urban fabric of our cities.
For Dog Welfare Practitioners
This study highlights a critical need to rethink how dogs are integrated into urban policy. The current focus on treating dogs as a nuisance to be merely controlled should be re-evaluated. Instead, urban planning should proactively incorporate dogs as part of our cities, providing accessible and shared space, in order to unleash the full potential of the human-canine bond.
Furthermore, this research revealed that dog owners primarily desire integration into urban life, not segregated areas. For this shift to succeed, policies must evolve, accompanied by clear and consistent public understanding. Equally vital is the education of dog owners, who must learn to responsibly share spaces with individuals who may not share the same passion for dogs.
The Full Picture
Since the late 1990s, UK urban planning policies have emphasized densification. Even though dogs are often portrayed in promotional materials for new developments as symbols of sociability, nature, and aspirational urban living, they are mostly absent in actual urban policy, which tends to treat them as nuisances to be controlled. This creates tensions and confusion for both dog owners and service providers, especially given the rise in dog ownership since COVID-19.
This paper, titled “‘They’re not dog friendly because they’re not anyone friendly’: living with dogs in two densifying London neighbourhoods”, focuses on the experiences of dogs and their owners in densifying London neighborhoods, arguing that dogs are not simply passive occupants of urban space but active participants shaping urban life. Drawing on multispecies urbanism, the paper challenges simplistic approaches to including dogs in urban policy, instead highlighting how dogs complicate urban planning.
Study Methods
Motivated by the authors’ personal experiences and the absence of animals in urban planning discourse, the study was conducted in two contrasting London areas: the historically dense Clerkenwell and the rapidly redeveloping Tottenham Hale/Seven Sisters.
Both areas have high population densities and varied access and restrictions regarding green spaces for dogs. Fourteen in-depth interviews — conducted through go-along and online formats between 2018 and 2021 — provided insight into the lived realities of dog owners. This research focuses on how people navigate public spaces and restrictions, as well as how policies impact these experiences.
Study Results
The research revealed that informal and inconsistent rules, expectations, and social norms significantly shaped people’s everyday experiences. Rather than a total absence of regulation, participants encountered a patchwork of guidance that required individual interpretation and negotiation — what the authors relate to the concept of legal consciousness, where laws and policies are filtered through personal experience and social context.
The Everyday Experience
1. Ambiguous Regulations and Housing Barriers
Participants frequently encountered inconsistent rules in housing, with restrictions differing by tenure type (rented, owned, council-managed) and building management. Some faced barriers to adoption or tenancy due to dog ownership, and housing authorities offered little clarity. In the private sector, dog ownership was often more accepted if one had the financial means to buy rather than rent, reinforcing class-based disparities.
2. Unclear and Uneven Access to Public Spaces
Signs prohibiting dogs, particularly in housing estates or storefronts, were common but often lacked clear authority, leading to confusion. Access to semi-public places like cafes, pubs, and shops depended heavily on the discretion of individual staff. Class, race, and the type of dog (e.g., “cute” toy breeds vs. Staffies) affected how welcome people felt. LGBTQ+ venues and middle-class establishments were more commonly accommodating.
3. Public Transport as a Site of Conflict
Despite official Transport for London policies allowing dogs on buses and the Tube, interviewees reported inconsistent enforcement and experiences shaped by driver discretion, lack of accessibility (e.g., no lifts), and even perceived biases based on gender or race. One interviewee resorted to carrying printed policies to assert her right to travel with her dog.
4. More Than Just Parks: Value of In-Between Spaces
While parks were used, smaller “in-between” spaces like brownfield lots, estate greens, and pavements were equally vital for short walks and toileting. These overlooked spaces often disappeared due to infill development. Interviewees emphasized that cafes, shops, and other non-park spaces were integral to daily life with a dog, yet lacked consistent dog-friendly access.
5. Ambiguity as a Social Struggle
Rather than being merely frustrating, this ambiguity in regulation created a landscape where social power could be asserted. Those confident in navigating the system or asserting their rights often had more access. Yet, rules varied by place, person, and even day — highlighting how dog-friendliness in Britain is highly situational and inconsistent.
Underlying Tensions
Interviewees rejected the idea of segregated dog areas, expressing instead a desire for full inclusion of dogs in everyday urban life. This reflects broader social shifts, where dogs are increasingly viewed as family members and integrated into urban identity. However, the urban environment often continues to treat dogs as conditional guests — allowed only if well-behaved or fitting specific middle-class aesthetics.
Dogs’ presence in the city exposes deeper tensions around who belongs in urban spaces. While some developments use dog-friendly marketing to signal inclusivity and lifestyle appeal, public policies often treat dogs as nuisances or risks, especially in multicultural and gentrifying areas. These contradictions result in fragmented experiences: dogs may be welcome in cafés and on billboards but excluded from parks, housing, or transport depending on subjective interpretation by staff or officials.
Conclusion
The paper highlights that the urban experience of living with dogs in dense city environments is shaped less by the presence or absence of clear regulations and more by ambiguity, inconsistencies, and competing social discourses. This ambiguity is often navigated through people’s informal interpretations of rules, influenced by class, identity, and context, rather than formal legal frameworks. For more vulnerable or marginalized people, this lack of clarity leads to unequal treatment and restricted access to housing, services, and public space.
Ultimately, the authors caution against simplistic solutions like more dog parks or green space, arguing instead for a broader reconsideration of how dogs are woven into the urban fabric. The aim should not be more regulation, but greater recognition of the everyday realities of people with dogs in dense, evolving cities. Ignoring the 13.5 million dogs in the UK within urban planning and policy contributes to exclusion, confusion, and conflict—undermining the very goals of urban sociability, inclusion, and livability.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
–
Year of Publication:
2024
External Link:
Eldridge, A., & Jović, M. (2024). ‘They’re not dog friendly because they’re not anyone friendly’: living with dogs in two densifying London neighbourhoods. City, 28(5–6), 770–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2024.2414370