Environmental Impact Study of a Dog Park in Burnet Woods
Anais Absalon, Ayden Bennett, Austin Burns, Sarah Jencson, and Michael Mason
Abstract
Development in urban greenspaces can have a number of impacts that should be
accounted for in urban planning. This investigation used mixed methods including
a transect study for species richness and a community perceptions survey to
assess community attitude toward the development of a dog park in an urban
green space. The key findings were that the transect sample illustrated several
clusters of dense species richness around groupings of mature trees and on the
wood lines of Burnet Woods. Our survey revealed that residents of nearby
neighborhoods have concerns over a new dog park. This investigation suggests
that, because development in urban greenspaces has both environmental and
social impacts, projects such as the one giving rise to this investigation (ie. a dog
park in an urban greenspace) require thorough environmental impact and
community assessments.
Introduction
“As human activities increase in natural areas, wildlife habitats tend to
show loss or fragmentation, negatively affecting the species distribution,
activity, reproduction and survival (Wiens 1990; Ceballos and Ehrlich
2002). Thus, habitat destruction has been targeted as one of the most
serious threats to biological diversity. . .” (Fetene et al., 2019).
An analysis of past and current studies shows positive and negative impacts can
occur as the result of the construction of dog parks in urban greenspaces.
Recreational developments have been linked to loss of canopy cover, biodiversity,
and bird population, both native and migratory (Mallord et al., 2006). More
specifically, dog parks have been known to cause acute amounts of soil and water
pollution, as well as soil compaction (Allen et al., 2020). These impacts can lead
to a decrease in water and gas permeability, survival rate, and low soil microbial
activity, all of which can adversely affect mature trees. Considering Burnet Woods
as an Important Bird Area [IBA], and as a diminished urban greenspace, any
proposal within the park should be thoroughly examined by the Cincinnati Park
Board before development.
In contrast, dog parks have also been linked to a higher sense of community
(Gómez et al., 2015), healthier dogs and human-dog relationships (Urbanik &
Morgan, 2013), increased property values, and decreased crime rates (Harnik &
Bridges, 2006). In consideration of positive and negative impacts, it is imperative
to explore available options to maximize community benefits and minimize
ecological impacts. By issuing a community survey and conducting a transect
sample on the proposed site, our research will help expand the knowledge base
for future park planners.
Methods
We employed mixed methods which includes: retrospective research, diversity
transects and a community survey. Retrospective research was performed using
Google Scholar to examine the ecological effects and community benefits of dog
parks in urban settings. Transects were completed in the field to determine
species richness across the area proposed for the dog park and data on
community benefits and interest was collected from a community survey. Our
examination of past studies took place from September until late November,
while the community survey lasted from October to late November. The diversity
transect was performed over the course of October 14th, 2021.
24 ten meter by ten meter quadrants were surveyed in the proposed site.
Transect sampling occurred using the following procedure: 1.) a quadrant was
measured using a measuring wheel and flagged at each corner, 2.) the quadrant
was viewed to identify unique species, 3.) the iNaturalist app identified species
when researcher knowledge was insufficient, 4.) species names were recorded in
a field journal, 5.) data was aggregated in a database, descriptive statistics run
and visualized over the approximated site map to show the distribution of species
richness of the proposed site as seen in Figure Two. A mixed-methods survey
was created to measure community perceptions toward the proposed dog park in
Burnet Woods. Due to time constraints, snowball sampling was used. 13
qualitative and quantitative questions ranging from yes/no style, scaling, and
short responses were given. From this form, pivot tables were created to
understand relationships between responses. Descriptive statistics were also
used to gather practical significance from the data set. To begin with
retrospective research we entered key words such as “community involvement”
“nitrate runoff” “biodiversity changes” and cross referenced those terms with dog
park development into Google Scholar. Results were then sorted and chosen
based on relevance.
Results
The quantitative feedback from the survey showed a majority of citizens were
against a dog park in Burnet Woods. 61.3% of individuals indicated that they do not
support the creation of a dog park (Figure one). The qualitative data showed a
disinterest in the potential dog park as well as concern for the possible effects on
the park and community. When asked to rank how much the community would
benefit from a dog park, dog owners averaged a 3.04 out of 5, while non dog
owners averaged a 1.6 out of 5, showing disparities between dog owners and non
dog owners over the perceived benefits of a dog park in Burnet Woods. The
average answer overall was 2.42 out of 5.
N=93
Figure One. The results of question four of the Burnet Woods dog park survey
Using retrospective research, we found a wide range of possible ecological
issues that are closely related to increased development or canine activity in
green spaces. A major concern early in research was the effect of increased
urine and feces in Burnet Woods. The close relationship between fecal matter
and urine and decreased water quality due to nitrate pollution has been
demonstrated in watershed research (Hobbie et al., 2017). High levels of fecal
coliform have also been shown to be primarily caused by increased dog activity,
especially in urban areas (Hobbie et al., 2017; Selvakumar & Borst, 2006).
Another primary focus was the possible changes to biodiversity from
development. Human activity has been linked to decreases in species
distribution and survival (Wiens 1990; Ceballos and Ehrlich 2002). Most if not all
potential benefits of a dog park are community based. Past studies indicated a
higher sense of community among citizens with access to a local dog park.
(Gomez, Baur, Hill, & Georgiev, 2015).” A study by Gomez et al. (2017) took the
abstract concept of social cohesion and quantified it, finding that dog parks
increased social bonds between community members who frequented the
parks.
Transect samples showed that there was more biodiversity near the tree canopy
and further into the wooded area. There was a total of 27 plant and animal
species identified at the site within the course of a few hours. The species
richness in each ten by ten meter transect ranged from 12 individual species to
as high as 27 (Figure Two). This does not include the vast multitude of
microbial, fungal and animal populations living in the soil. The recorded species
fulfill a great multitude of niches. Integral members of the ecosystem including
producers, primary consumers, predators and decomposers were all found in
our transects.
Figure Two. Species richness map for proposed site
Discussion
This project evaluates the effects of a dog park on Burnet Woods’ ecosystem and
the surrounding community’s well being. The question of a dog park’s true
ecological impact, especially on biodiversity and whether or not citizens believe
they would benefit from a dog park were not fully investigated prior to our
research. Upon conducting 24 species richness transect studies, we found that
biodiversity was higher closer to tree canopies. This finding is even more
important in the context of our retrospective research that correlates dog activity
to tree damage. The community survey showed that the theoretical community
benefits discussed in previous literature do not necessarily hold up in Cincinnati’s
Uptown area. The majority of surveyed individuals did not want a dog park, even
though a majority responding to the survey also claimed to own dogs themselves.
Although no questions mention the parks’ ecology, survey respondents raised
concerns about impacts to wildlife and trees in Burnet Woods. Survey
respondents also worried about an increase in off-leash animals, demonstrating
that the park may not increase community cohesion as previously expected.
Figure three is a QR code that will link you to the full survey results. Overall, there
is a much greater understanding of community interests and ecological
considerations in a green space that has not yet been subject to official
evaluations.
Improvements to the study are numerous but are mainly indicative of a small
scale university study with limited funding and time. Three months is not enough
time to gather the data necessary to fully understand whether or not a dog park is
beneficial to the community and environment. Future investigations could be done
on the sewer drain in the area proposed for the dog park, any runoff from urine or
fecal matter, synthetic turf, or plastic waste could contaminate the water entering
this drain. Research could also be done to determine if there is a correlation
between an increase in dog bites and dog fights in dog parks. With increased
resources, microbial analysis could be performed on watersheds near the park
and more data could be collected from both the transects and the community.
Acknowledgements
Burnet Woods Nature Center, Preserve Burnet Woods, and the Uptown Community.
References
Allen, J. A., Setälä, H., & Kotze, D. J. (2020). Dog Urine Has Acute Impacts on Soil Chemistry in Urban Greenspaces. Frontiers in
Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.615979
Ceballos, G., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2002). Mammal Population Losses and the Extinction Crisis. Science, 5569, 904–907.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069349
Fetene, A., Yeshitela, K., & Gebremariam, E. (2019). The effects of anthropogenic landscape change on the abundance and habitat
use of terrestrial large mammals of Nech Sar National Park. Environmental Systems Research, 1.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-019-0147-z
Gómez, E., Baur, J. W. R., Hill, E., & Georgiev, S. (2015). Urban Parks and Psychological Sense of Community. Journal of Leisure
Research, 3, 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2015.11950367
Gómez, E., Baur, J. W. R., & Malega, R. (2017). Dog park users: An examination of perceived social capital and perceived
neighborhood social cohesion. Journal of Urban Affairs, 3, 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1343634
Harnik, P., & Bridges, C. (2006). Creating Dog Parks- Without Rancor. The Trust for Public Land.
http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_Dog_Park_Report.pdf
Hobbie, S. E., Finlay, J. C., Janke, B. D., Nidzgorski, D. A., Millet, D. B., & Baker, L. A. (2017). Contrasting nitrogen and phosphorus
budgets in urban watersheds and implications for managing urban water pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 16, 4177–4182. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618536114
MALLORD, J. W., DOLMAN, P. M., BROWN, A. F., & SUTHERLAND, W. J. (2006). Linking recreational disturbance to population size
in a ground-nesting passerine. Journal of Applied Ecology, 1, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01242.x
Selvakumar, A., & Borst, M. (2006). Variation of microorganism concentrations in urban stormwater runoff with land use and seasons.
Journal of Water and Health, 1, 109–124. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2006.0009
Urbanik, J., & Morgan, M. (2013). A tale of tails: The place of dog parks in the urban imaginary. Geoforum, 292–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.08.001
Wiens JA (1990) Habitat fragmentation and wildlife populations: the importance of autecology, time and landscape structure. In: Trans.
19th IUGB congress, pp 381–391
Figure Three. QR Code for Full Survey Results