Paw-ndering Dog Parks for Prince George?s County Final report from URSP600: Qualitative Research Design & Methods for Planners, Spring 2022 The University of Maryland ? College Park PALS - Partnership for Action Learning in Sustainability An initiative of the National Center for Smart Growth Prepared for Prince George?s County, MD Department of Parks and Recreation Report authored by John Abban, Danielle Abe, Paul Abel, Heather Asamoah, Jesse Bardsley, Christina ?Winnie? Cargill, Katharine Dyson, Maria Fernanda Farieta, Dominique Gebru, Michael Hackman, Asia Vernai? Jones, Upasana Kaku, Redowan Kabir Kaushik, Maureen Madden, Elizabeth Mekonnen, Andrew Melmed, Pamela Owusu Nkwantabisah, Benjamin Ripley, Ariana Santana, Ebrahim Seyedebrahimi, Max Van Allen, Deisy Velasquez, Rachel Whiteheart Report assembled by Katharine Dyson Under the supervision of Professor Louis L. Thomas, PhD PALS - Partnership for Action Learning in Sustainability An initiative of the National Center for Smart Growth Gerrit Knaap, NCSG Executive Director Kim Fisher, PALS Director Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Major Findings And Recommendations 5 Typology 8 Introduction 9 Towards A Typology Of Dog Parks 10 A Brief History Of Dog Parks 12 Areas Of Research Inquiry 12 Literature Review 15 Project Limitations 22 Case Studies 24 Proposed Sites: Cheverly, Md 52 Conclusions 54 Bibliography 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dog parks are an increasingly demanded and contested urban amenity. As Prince George?s County continues to develop, the placement of new county-run dog parks has become a critical planning issue. This qualitative study examined seven existing dog parks located in Prince George?s County, and adjacent municipalities of Montgomery County, MD and Washington, D.C. We sought to understand how dog parks are used in the region, and the roles they play regarding community development, gentrification, transportation, and environmental impacts. Our findings suggest a typology of dog parks should be used to best design and locate various new parks to ensure success. This report was produced as part of a graduate course in Qualitative Research Design & Methods in the University of Maryland (UMD) College Park?s Urban Studies & Planning program. This course was a partnership between the university and Prince George?s County?s Department of Parks & Recreation (PG Parks), through the Partnership for Action Learning in Sustainability (PALS) program, an initiative of UMD?s National Center for Smart Growth. PG Parks is interested in a framework for the design and location of new dog parks. While the whole county is under consideration, inner-ring densifying areas are a focus. Over the Spring 2022 semester, students investigated this topic while learning the skills associated with qualitative planning research. The researchers used methods that included archive and document analysis, environmental/behavioral and participant observation, soundscape and video documentation, critical cartography, and interviews. This study aimed to better understand how dog parks are used and the report makes recommendations for how to best design and locate dog parks to ensure their success. Questions of community, access, and equity were central to this inquiry. Seven case study sites were selected to examine a variety of park types, including variations in design, scale, location (urban/suburban), ecology (slope/stormwater issues, etc.), and material (grass/synthetic). The dog parks studied were: Eckington, Shaw, and Takoma in D.C.; Ellsworth and Cabin John in Montgomery County; along with Heurich and Waggertail in Prince George?s County. Criteria developed from the literature review and field work was also used to evaluate three potential sites in Cheverly, MD?a community in Prince George?s County that has been requesting a dog park. The three parks examined?Boyd Park, Town Park, and Euclid Street Park?could all potentially accommodate a successful dog park, though Town Park is the most suitable candidate. Euclid Street Park has ample acreage and great potential for a dog park but it would likely require redesigning other park elements. 4 MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Community ? Dog parks can foster social interaction Seating facilitates social interaction between users Smaller dog parks may generate more social interaction ? An extensive community outreach process during the planning and design phase is key for generating support and promoting use and maintenance Equity ? While users from all walks of life were observed, the majority users of the dog park appeared to be young professionals and families Dog parks should be open to all people with no access restrictions that are community- specific Gates that require codes or keys may hinder the creation of inclusive spaces ? Conversely, a registration model may give peace of mind to dog park users (If registration is rarely enforced, the space may be functionally inclusive while supporting maintenance and community building) Shade And Sun ? Designs should include ample shade during the summer and ample sun exposure during cooler seasons ? Trees and vegetation are useful tools with multiple benefits Seating ? Plenty of seating options should be available ? Seating should be placed close together to encourage conversation ? Groups of three or more frequently observed; seating design should accommodate such groups ? Many design options work well for seating; in addition to benches, use box planters, rocks, climbable structures, ledges, etc. ? Seasonal shade and sun need to be considered with seating Sightlines For Playground ? Many parents use dog parks and playgrounds simultaneously and desire proximity and clear sightlines. This contrasts with a commonly expressed claim by opponents of the dangers of siting dog parks adjacent to playgrounds Entrances for dog parks and playgrounds can be designed as non-adjacent, but sightlines between the two should be maintained when feasible Barriers Or Distance Between Ball-Sports And Dog Parks ? Dogs may be distracted by adjacent sports fields if balls are in play ? Some distance or visual barrier (planting, semi-opaque fencing, etc.) is recommended 5 Varied Design Shapes And Sizes May Facilitate Varying Behaviors ? Linear parks may be preferred for fetching and running ? Large, rectilinear parks lead dogs to run freely in the center and owners to stand or sit along the perimeter ? Non-rectilinear parks may benefit from agility equipment as a central activity ? Small corners in non-rectilinear park designs may promote dog-to-dog interactions, but if hidden they can accumulate dog waste Signage ? Post park rules clearly at the entrances to ensure acceptable behavior ? Include bulletin boards for dog park community events or notices, including who to contact to become more involved or to report an issue ? Include signage upkeep in maintenance programs Maintenance ? Good maintenance is important for comfort and use of the space ? Features such as sprinkler systems, trash cans, and waste bags can contribute to a well- maintained park ? Encourage the ongoing involvement and partnership with the county and the community ? Create wide fence sections that allow large machines into park for maintenance ? Place trash receptacles either inside or within an accessible arm?s reach of the fence ? Include waste bag dispensers Surface Materials ? The county should provide a variety of surface material options in parks ? There is no perfect surface material for dog parks; all have pros and cons as well as advocates and detractors ? Pervious materials (mulch, grass, gravel, permeable pavers) allow for water infiltration, key for effective stormwater management maintenance can be a challenge?for example, grass may not be sustainable in heavily-used dog parks ? Permeable pavers, such as kennel tiles, offer some of advantages of permeable and impermeable surfaces, but are expensive ? A mix of pervious and impervious surface materials may be the best solution Fencing ? Semi-permeable fencing allows sightlines in and out of the park ? Must be have an effective height and solidity to catch dog toys that are thrown or rolled Noise And Location ? Consider using already noisy sites, such as those next to busy roads or industrial areas Lighting ? Lights can extend dog park hours and seasonal use 6 Separate Large And Small Dog Areas ? Small dogs often use the large dog areas Small dog areas are useful to separate and calm overly-excited dogs of all sizes ? They should be included in the design, perhaps at a minimized size Further research is needed to determine if this practical, informal use should be formalized through signage or renaming Transportation ? Pets (non-service animals) are currently banned from county public transit ? Consider parking needs in the design, including accessible parking and street-parking Consider the needs of older dogs For dog parks within larger regional parks, include wayfinding signage Smaller, urban dog parks likely need less parking, if any, though many people will still drive Consider shared parking with adjacent buildings Usable Drinking Water Sources ? Design faucets and water fountain spigots that make it easy to fill up a dog bowl Consider Existing Uses And Ecology For Potential Sites ? Determine whether an unprogrammed area is truly unused or underused before recommending it as a candidate site Unprogrammed spaces can be highly valued for picnics and gatherings, sports, and other informal uses ? When possible, dog parks should not be built in environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, floodplains) or areas that require significant tree removal or landscape disturbance ? Drainage issues are essential in dog park design 7 TYPOLOGY Table 1: Dog Park Typologies Focused In The DC Metro Area Additional notes: Square footages are specific to the area of the off leash area and do not include any surrounding parkland Surface material options can range wildly and are therefore not tied to any one typology but are important to consider as they are one of the key defining factors in the creation of a sense of place or identity in the park Seating should be placed in shade whenever possible It is ideal to maintain a space on site for storage of materials and supplies to serve the park Typology: Limitations Research into dog park typologies isn?t a well-established field and our team wasn?t equipped to conduct a comprehensive study to offset this lack of scholarship. The contentious arguments that surround dog parks demand more research and a comprehensive classification system to understand and analyze the impacts of these places on the people around them. In general, the prevailing thought on dog parks seems to be that they are a secondary service or feature. But demand is rapidly increasing, further emphasizing the need for formal classification and established typology categories. The various models for classifying parks put forward by Cranz and Byrne are a potential framework for forming dog park typologies in urban and suburban contexts but require more development to apply. Given this study?s time frame, the typologies focus on dog parks in the Washington metro area, and therefore the traits of the region?s existing dog parks significantly impacted the categorizations. Additional study of a much wider range of dog parks is needed to establish a more consistent and reliable standard. Typology: Methods To establish the key characteristics that define dog park typologies, and in doing so reveal the impact of these spaces, we investigated existing typologies and classifications of dog parks and other types of parks through archival research. In addition, we visited a range of local parks and organized focus groups to gather data on the parks? physical characteristics, using sound mapping, sketching, context analysis, and community engagement. Through direct and participatory observation, and stakeholder interviews, we aimed to form an understanding of the park experience from the user?s perspective and how the type of the park impacted its use and activities. These methods helped answer the research questions and set the foundation for a dog park typological categorization. 8 INTRODUCTION Dog parks are designated park areas where dogs can exercise and play off-leash. They are an increasingly desired public amenity in the US (Matisoff & Noonan, 2012). Demand for dog parks is particularly prevalent in urban and suburban environments, where dogs have less access to open space (Allen, 2007). Given the high demand for dog parks, it is essential to understand their users and use design best practices to ensure environmental benefits while reducing environmental externalities. The idea of designated parks and spaces specifically for dogs arose in the US in the late 1970s (Greenberg 2020). Often, these parks were established through grassroots organizing and maintained by residents. Since then, this type of recreational land has slowly gained traction. Designated areas or parks for dogs didn?t achieve real popularity in the US until the late 1980s (Greenberg 2020). While dog parks have continued to grow in popularity, the research on this topic is still quite limited. Nonetheless, dog parks have since become a staple of the urban and suburban American landscape. According to one estimate, 70% of US households own at least one dog, an increase from 56% of households in 1988 (APPA, 2022). The phenomenon of ?pandemic pups? has likely increased this number (Pierce & Bekoff, 2021). As dogs become more common in American households, there is a growing demand for dog-related services and infrastructure. Dog parks are now an in-demand amenity for communities across the US. Prince George?s County currently has four county-maintained dog parks, with another two in design (PGDPR, 2022). As the county continues to develop and implement new dog parks, understanding community needs and context is crucial. Inequities exist all around us. Equity of access to dog parks is important; they are valuable assets for Prince George?s County communities. We want to understand how dog parks are distributed by a local government and if they are equitably distributed. Location, accessibility, fee to use the dog park, amenities, and park infrastructure help determine if a dog park is accessible to all members of the public. 9 TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF DOG PARKS This study aims to establish a framework of dog park typologies to assist and serve the growing demand for this public amenity. By studying a variety of existing dog parks, we identified categories that would be useful for planners to consider in the design process (see Table 1). Guiding questions included: How many generalizable types of dog parks are there? What roles do size, context, features, and naturalness play in defining categories or types of dog parks? And what considerations are derived based on factors such as surface material, shading, and their general shape? Dog parks are usually located on public lands and are often spacious enough for dogs and dog owners to exercise and move around (Schlereth, 2016). As interest in dog parks as an amenity has increased, designers and planners have become more creative about fitting them into small urban areas, as well as the more conventional large-scale suburban dog parks. With a wide range of size, attributes and neighboring density, the term ?dog park? is no longer enough to accurately describe outdoor dog facilities in the US today. Many Americans express interest in public spaces like dog parks. As the number of dog owners continues to increase, city officials are challenged to consider the development of these parks to benefit the community (Cutt et al, 2008). Service areas of parks may differ, with some dog parks drawing many people from a wider radius (ARC Associates et al,2020). In some cases, the availability of or proximity to amenities or types of parks has been linked to park users? satisfaction and attendance (Jeminez, 2016). More studies reveal that the absence of some amenities tends to have an impact on park use. Smaller dog parks can have adverse effects on dog owners and their dogs during crowded peak hours (Harkin et al, 2006), making the park undesirable and ineffective. Some dog parks have increased conflict between municipal officials and park users especially in urban settings. Therefore, it?s important to form a clear understanding of the forms these spaces should take, and how they impact the people who use them. Historically, park typologies have been established in several ways using various criteria? naturalness, size, and features (Byrne 2010) as well as size, activity, relation to the city, order, elements, social goals, promoters and beneficiaries (Cranz 1982). There are also mixed opinions in categorizing parks by park districts, which doesn?t necessarily or strictly follow specific guidelines outlined by the National Recreation and Park Association. The disparity in park classifications had been attributed to each area?s uniqueness. There is little literature that establishes specific dog park typologies. In fact, the category of dog park is often considered an ?amenity? or ?facility? that can be found within other parks (Montgomery Planning Board, 2018). Other sources refer to smaller dog parks as ?off-leash areas? and larger dog parks as ?dog parks? (Holderness-Roddam, 2017). Locally, the Montgomery County Park and Planning Commission treats dog parks as a feature of a larger park, typically within a regional park (Montgomery Planning Board, 2017). Prince George?s County establishes two levels of dog parks with varying criteria including size, shade, and number or size of features. (Worshtil, 2022). 10 The categorization of dog parks is highly dependent on a site?s context and distinguishes between the multiplicity of possible design combinations. Physical features, context and location are all important typological considerations. For example, the Ann Arbor, MI Park Advisory Commission Dog Park Subcommittee divides the characteristics of dog parks into three factors: placement, design, and management. Within their guidelines, the City of Ann Arbor examined dog parks across multiple cities in the United States, including Baltimore, Maryland (Parks & Recreation, City of Ann Arbor, 2014). The placement factor encompasses characteristics such as context, size, buffering, water source, parking, drainage, shade, use of conflict avoidance, wildlife and natural area protection, and geographic distribution. (Parks & Recreation, City of Ann Arbor, 2014) The design factor characteristics are fencing height and material, surfacing, small/large dog area separation, site furniture and other amenities, trash cans and bag holders, signage, accessibility, vegetation. Finally, the management factor sorts dog parks based on their hours of operation, rules and regulations, fines, staffing, volunteers and enforcement (Parks & Recreation, City of Ann Arbor, 2014). Grouping the characteristics of dog parks by these factors could provide a reliable framework to formalize consistent dog park typologies in urban and suburban contexts. Table 1 (pg. 8) proposes a typological categorization and can serve as a framework for potential future research and development. It?s important to note that some important design factors aren?t included in this chart. For example, surface material is an important factor, however at this point, we don?t have the information to determine which surface materials are ideal for each typology. That is a context and site-specific decision dependent on a park?s design parameters. Additionally, a park?s shape and context can dramatically impact the park experience and therefore its typology, but we don?t fully explore this and don?t include it in the categorization parameters. Also, a quantitative examination of surrounding residential densities or predominant building types may shed light on the relationship between dog park size, location, and parking. For example, in dense areas with many residents in urban-style apartments, it may be desirable to have more small dog parks for everyday use. Answering these typological questions was beyond the scope of this project. 11 A BRIEF HISTORY OF DOG PARKS In 1979, Martha Scott Benedict and Doris Richards formed the first known dog park in Berkeley, CA. It was named The Martha Scott Benedict Memorial Park and started a movement. Its users took their dogs to an empty lot that had been cleared for San Francisco?s subway expansion. The Ohlone Dog Park was established that same year. Ohlone dog park users fought the City of Berkeley City?s leash laws, seeking to allow their dogs to run freely in the park rather than within the required eight feet from their owner (Greenburg 2020). From the 1980s to 2000s dog parks spread across the country (Trust for Public Land). Between 2005 and 2010, there was a 34 percent increase in dog parks created in the US?s 100 largest cities. As of 2010, there were over 569 dog parks in those cities (Belt, 2015). In 2015, Portland had the most dog parks at 33 with other dog parks in Arlington, Virginia, Las Vegas, and Tampa (Harnik et al., 2015). By 2019, there were 810 dog parks in the 100 largest cities?a 4.8 increase from the previous year (Trust for Public Land, 2019). An accurate understanding of the history of dog parks can give insight into the role they play in a community. AREAS OF RESEARCH INQUIRY Community Dog parks are a community asset. They are gathering places for individuals and social groups who rely on them. However, current research doesn?t include enough direct observation of social activity within these parks. What role can dog parks play in community building? What role do they play in users? perceptions of community? Which groups use the park? Who are groups made up of? How do visitors identify themselves to the community? How do people make new social connections at the parks? What roles do dogs play in this process? What roles do dog parks play for users who use dog parks in a more solitary manner? Environment This study explores how dog parks impact the physical environment and it describes environmental best practices for dog park development. The following research questions guided our inquiry: ? How do dog parks affect the environment? ? What are environmental best practices for dog park design? ? What environmental conditions are most appropriate for dog park development? ? How does the environment around the park affect its users? ? How does the dog park impact the environmental health of the surrounding neighborhood? ? What type of infrastructure is in the area? ? What type of zoning? ? What type of people live in the neighborhood? ? What is the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood? ? What environmental hazards are present? ? What natural hazards are present? ? What built environment hazards are present? ? What other organisms may impact park users? 12 Public Health This report also investigates the relationship between public health and dog parks to determine how this relationship impacts dog park desirability. A primary question is how do dog parks impact the public health of a community? This question influenced secondary research questions that can be separated into four categories: the mental health of dog owners, animal behavior, safety, and environment. First, the mental health of dog owners?what is the relationship between stress management and dog parks? How is the mental health of dog owners impacted by use of the dog park? A focus on animal behavior raises such questions as how is dog behavior affected by park visits? How does dogs? behavior change before and after visiting the park? How do dogs interact with the dog park? Safety and environment questions include consideration of design for diverse park users, including the safety children considered and between small and big dogs? Transportation This research project also explores the travel preferences and modes used by visitors to access dog parks. How do visitors travel to the park and what options are available? How do visitors feel about their travel options and are there any complications in accessing the park? What transportation modes do visitors wish were available to reach the dog park? Are visitors willing and able to walk to a park near their home? Do visitors use different travel modes at different times of the day? How much parking is available at the dog park, and is it well-used? How do visitors feel about the travel modes associated with adjacent land uses and buildings? The unit of analysis for the transportation research questions will be the aggregate of visitors to a given dog park. The primary case study park used for transportation research was the suburban, mid-sized Waggertail Dog Park in Riverdale, but each group considered transportation preferences and methods during this study to ensure that transportation research data is available for a wider range of dog parks. Gentrification & Equity Another intent of this research is to analyze the relationships and intersections between dog parks and equitable environments for residents. For example, how do dog parks contribute to forces of gentrification in urban and suburban neighborhoods? Who are the parks? intended users and who do they serve? How does the presence of dog parks in gentrifying neighborhoods foster inclusion or exclusion between longer-term residents and newer residents? What factors contribute to a resident?s perception of dog parks as places open to all? Are there signs of equity issues within a dog park community? Which park features can ensure equity for users? Our units of analysis included the facilities and accessibility of dog parks (sidewalks, water, bathroom, parking lots, etc.) By understanding who can and who does actually use the dog parks, we can understand the role of equity in dog parks and if equity varies by the type of park. 13 14 LITERATURE REVIEW Community Dog parks in the US are generally viewed in positively by respondents (NRPA, 2018; Gomez et al., 2018). According to a National Parks and Recreation Association (NRPA, 2018) survey, 91% of Americans believe dog parks provide benefits to their communities. The number one benefit identified was that dog parks ?give dogs a safe space to exercise and roam freely,? which was chosen by 60% of respondents. Fewer respondents identified benefits to humans; ?provides owners with a chance to be active with their pet? was chosen by 36% of respondents, and ?gives owners a chance to socialize with other owners? was chosen by 16% of respondents (NRPA, 2018). Despite the perception that most of the benefits of dog parks accrue to dogs, other research has postulated benefits to humans. Lee et al. (2009) found that 77% of respondents in their survey of users in selected Texas and Florida dog parks agreed that ?a dog park provides opportunities to meet neighbors and build a sense of community.? Much of the theory on how these benefits occur relates to the dogs themselves rather than the parks. The literature identifies dogs as ?social lubricants? (Carlisle, 2015), and there is evidence that a human accompanied by a dog is perceived as more likable (Rossbach & Wilson, 1992). There is also evidence that people with dogs have more casual interactions with strangers (McNicholas & Collis, 2000) and receive more helping behavior (Gu?guen & Ciccotti, 2008). Dogs may be a part of a common narrative (Graham and Glover, 2014, p. 219) since experiences with dogs are one of the few topics that most people have in common (Newby, 1997 as cited in Graham & Glover, 2014), thus allowing them to serve as a conversation starter. Generally, pets are correlated with higher social capital and civic engagement (Wood et al., 2005, p.1159). Dogs especially lead to greater social interaction, since they get their owners outside and into public spaces, like dog parks (Wood et al., 2005, p.1162). In the dog park setting, one qualitative study found that ?participants experienced dog parks through their pets?social processes of human relationship building in dog parks seemed to be based upon how participants? dogs behaved toward other dogs and humans? (Graham & Glover, 2014, p. 223). Dogs are helpful for maintaining the commons, or public space, through volunteering (Noonan et al., 2016). The authors note their ?...results highlight that social interaction at the park and history of repeated use are correlated with a sense of community and contributions to the park?s upkeep? (Noonan et al., 2016, p.86S). Since dogs often make park regulars out of their owners, a sense of community and spirit of volunteerism could also follow. At least one study (Lee et al., 2009) used behavioral mapping, observing whether dog park users spent their time in groups or as individuals. However, to our knowledge, no study has done much direct observation to understand how people form and maintain (or choose not to have) social connections in dog parks and the role that plays in communities. To investigate this, observation will be our primary research method. Overall, the literature suggests that dogs can foster a better sense of community and social capital between dog park users, and generally provide a benefit to those who interact with dogs in public spaces. 15 Environment To date, planning practitioners, landscape designers, and government agencies have researched how the design of parks and other open space amenities can impact the environment, related to issues of climate change, stormwater management, and biodiversity. There is less research available on how these design features can be implemented at dog parks, or how they might be complicated by the parks? unique requirements and considerations. For Prince George?s County, which intends to repurpose underused parts of existing county parks for future dog parks, answers to these questions can help drive site selection and park design to help preserve the ecosystem services capacity of the overall park system. Based on existing literature about the environmental considerations of parks, this study seeks to answer questions about how park site selection and design (e.g., surfacing materials and other amenities) impact the environment. Existing literature notes that trees and vegetation can help address climate change by sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (National Park Service, n.d.). Tree planting and green spaces can also help improve environmental quality by reducing the heat island effect in urban and suburban areas. Heat islands are areas of built environment that experience higher temperatures than surrounding environs, primarily due to increased heat retention by physical structures such as roads and buildings (EPA, n.d.a). In addition to higher heat levels, heat islands can increase air pollution (EPA, n.d.b). Tree cover and vegetation reduce the heat island effect, thus mitigating these environmental impacts (Shishegar, 2014; Edmondson, et al. 2016). Parks and open spaces that incorporate varied plant and tree species help increase local biodiversity, which is defined as the diversity of life forms that exist on Earth (Wilson, Chivian, & Bernstein, n.d.). However, concentrated canine activity can significantly decrease biodiversity at dog park sites (De Frenne et. al, 2022). Dogs may damage vegetation and have a negative impact on wildlife. Therefore, selected plant species must be compatible with canines (i.e., not poisonous to), as well as resilient to higher urine and feces concentrations and increased foot traffic. There is limited literature on how to select sufficiently hardy and non-toxic species and manage dog park plantings to both advance climate goals and support biodiversity. Observational data from the Ellsworth Dog Park case study, later in this report, includes information on the status of trees and plants within the park, as well as how humans and canines interact with the vegetation. These observations help answer the question of how to incorporate trees and vegetation into a dog park. Trees and vegetation in parks can also reduce ambient noise pollution (Nowak & Heisler, 2010). However, concentrated canine activity in dog parks can increase noise pollution (Schlereth, 2016). Landscape design techniques such as sound-absorbing trees and natural sound walls can be used to help ease the noise pollution from dog parks (Cerw?n, 2017). 16 For Prince George?s County, the stormwater and pollution implications of dog parks are particularly important. County representatives report that almost all the county?s existing parks are in floodplains, which makes them particularly vulnerable to stormwater issues, flooding, and associated challenges, and makes waste management particularly important. Stormwater runoff occurs when precipitation flows along impervious surfaces. That runoff collects pollution from the built environment and deposits it in local waterways, harming marine ecosystems (EPA, n.d.c). Stormwater management is of particular importance at dog parks because dog feces and urine can impact local water quality (Hennings, 2016). Planners and operators of dog parks have found that proper waste management practices can reduce the impact of feces and urine at dog park sites. Dog waste can also be composted at scale, providing a sustainable alternative to traditional dog waste management practices (Nemiroff & Patterson, 2007). Various design practices can retain and treat stormwater runoff. For example, permeable surface materials such as mulch, grass and pervious pavement absorb groundwater. Landscape design techniques such as rain gardens and vegetated swales can further contribute to runoff and pollution management (Department of Environmental Protection, 2006). The surfacing material for dog parks is a major design aspect from a user perspective and due to its environmental implications. Some materials that may be optimal from an environmental perspective may be problematic for users. For example, Schelereth notes that common surfacing materials include ?cement, pea gravel, modified wood chips, grass, artificial turf [and] wood chips (mulch).? While mulch would be an attractive material from a stormwater management perspective?it allows water to permeate the ground (unlike cement or other impervious surfaces)?Schelereth notes that from a user perspective, mulch is among the worst choices; dogs may eat the mulch (8). This study considers various surfacing materials and uses data to make connections between stormwater best practices and materials that are successful and durable in dog parks. Surfacing materials and other park infrastructure also have implications beyond stormwater; they have carbon and pollution impacts from their creation and maintenance. For example, grass may have a lower embodied carbon than manufactured materials such as artificial turf or cement. However, depending on management practices, it may require fertilizer and create emissions from mowing and other maintenance. Sustainable site materials such as recycled composite fencing and 100% recycled park benches can contribute to an environmentally friendly park design, and some of these approaches may be applicable to dog parks. 17 Public Health The benefits of owning a dog are like owning other pets in that owners experience a better quality of life as a result. The identified health benefits of pet ownership include decreased mortality, blood pressure, cholesterol, and other adverse health outcomes (Evenson et al., 2016). Some of these health benefits come from the frequent walking associated with caring for a dog (Samuels et al., 2011). Both the owner and the dog benefit from the exercise, specifically with benefits for the dogs? cardiovascular system (Gomez & Malega, 2019). Moreover, according to Samuels et al., dogs benefit from the physical exercises of walking, which also challenges their minds and helps reinforce obedience. Concurring with the positive health benefits of dog parks, Anspatch also agrees that dog parks play an essential role in both leisure and mental health (Anspach, 2022). Both owners and dogs experience various benefits from the use of dog parks (Gomez & Malega, 2019). Ultimately, spaces for dogs to exercise and play alongside their owners, can help improve the health of dogs and their owners. Dog parks provide an environment for dogs to exercise, play, and socialize with other dogs. Living near a dog park is proven to foster more walking for pets and their owners. However, the location of dog parks may prove to be a barrier to more frequent walking. If owners drive to a dog park (Samuels et al., 2011) They lose the amount of exercise that could be gained through walking. Therefore, according to Evenson et al., existing dog parks should be assessed for walkability and ways to promote more walking for owners and their dogs. While dog parks help promote exercise for dogs and owners through the acts of play, dog parks can also pose a risk to users and their dogs. They can expose dogs to infectious diseases in animal feces. According to Turowski, studies have shown that about 20-40% of dogs visiting dog parks carry intestinal parasites that can be transmitted to other dogs and to humans. Due to wildlife and infected dogs, animal defecation can increase dog and human exposure to parasites. This is a risk for any animal, however, puppies and children are most at risk (Turowski, 2021). Feces may also increase the chance of owners slipping and experiencing a serious injury (Rahim et al., 2018). In addition to the health risks of feces, the parks? natural environment can create a home for other parasites such as ticks. Dog parks with grassy areas can place a dog at higher risk of being tick infection (van Heeckeren, 2021). Dog parks can also expose users and dogs to aggressive dog behavior. Dogs who exhibit canine aggression pose a bite risk for park users, particularly small children (Rahim et al., 2018). While aggression may be associated with a higher likelihood of biting, shy and nervous dogs can also bite out of fear, which can be experienced in the socialization promoted by dog parks (Helmer, 2015). The operation of off-leash parks poses risks; dogs can move around, defecate, and freely interact with other dogs, increasing the likelihood of injury or disease. But, while off-leash parks raise these concerns, they are also areas with fewer reported crimes (Rahim et al., 2018). 18 Transportation This research project recommends that Prince George?s County incorporate travel needs into dog park development. The literature contends that the relationship between dog parks and transportation has implications for personal well-being, accessibility, equity, climate, and the environment. In their study of use patterns and park user satisfaction, Lee et al. (2009) identified a positive correlation between ?proximity to a dog park? and ?frequency of use.? American Public Health Association highlights a similar correlation between general park proximity and increased physical activity and usage (Cohen et al., 2007). Lee (2009), Renne (2010), Booth (2017), Kent et al. (2017), Giles-Corti et al. (2005), and Evanson et al. (2016) all discuss the positive health implications of walking to/from and within public parks, with many specifically speaking about dog parks. Lail et al. (2011) find that the physical activity of dog owners in cold areas remains stable from summer to winter. McCormack (2011) argues living close to a dog park is associated with a rise in dog walking frequency. In site-specific accessibility terms, Brown (2012) recommends that designers locate parking near the main entrance gate and include accessible spots, ADA accessible routes, and bike racks. Lee et al. suggest adding security lighting to the parking lots (2009). Kent et al. (2017) note that dog owners are limited in using public transportation to access dog parks due to animal prohibitions. In Prince George?s County, all animals, except for properly harnessed guide dogs, are prohibited from public transportation, which is typical in many municipalities (Prohibited Conduct, 1986; Kent et al., 2017). These restrictions force owners to drive to facilities, leading the authors of one study to advocate for policy changes that allow pets on public transportation (Kent et al., 2017). Increasingly, researchers are examining the environmental impact of commuting to dog parks, with MacKenzie et al. (2020) suggesting building more parks in suburban areas to decrease driving. In Seattle, researchers identified the additional CO2 emissions and VMT directly generated by dog owners driving to parks (MacKenzie et al., 2020). In Hong Kong, Chang et al. (2019) specifically studied urban park accessibility via public transportation modes using Google Maps API data. They found public transportation was causing spatial inequality of urban park accessibility and that private housing residents had an easier time accessing an urban park using public transportation than public housing residents (Chang et al., 2019). Booth (2017) highlights gaps in community engagement during the dog park site selection process, noting that public recommendations tend to go mostly unaddressed by the government. Noonan et al. (2016), however, suggests smaller and less suburban dog parks to support community formation and a solid sense of community. Brown (2012) suggests departments identify locations with existing parking as potential dog park sites to avoid additional costs, while Zucca (2008) promotes the use of GIS tools and better analytical processes for selecting local parks. 19 Gentrification & Equity Gentrification is a complex and controversial topic in urban planning. Gentrification has been defined in various ways and with connotations that can be neutral, positive, or negative. For example, Causa Justa:: Just Cause defines gentrification as the ?profit-driven race and class remake of urban, working class communities and communities of color that have suffered from a history of disinvestment and abandonment (Levitt, 2015, p. 88). This definition focuses on how gentrification interacts with communities of color and the discrimination and racism they?ve endured (Zoe Levitt, 2015). Alternatively, Lance Freeman (2012) writes that ?almost all definitions of gentrification would describe it as a process that takes place in older, relatively poor urban neighborhoods, where a mass of more advantaged residents and investment capital transforms the neighborhood? (pp. 280-286). Gentrifying neighborhoods often receive improved amenities and services, like supermarkets, parks, and increased commercial and retail activity. New amenities can benefit both new and long-time residents, though not all residents respond similarly to new services and amenities. Dog parks are one such amenity that can generate debate over the way space is perceived, used, and consumed by both new and long-time residents. Gentrification is a powerful force that can bring investment and revitalization to previously poor, struggling neighborhoods. It has the potential to bring socioeconomic diversity to neighborhoods. On the other hand, gentrification can bring insecurity and cynicism among long-time residents and raises questions about physical and cultural displacement (Freeman, 2006). Dog parks can play a distinct role in gentrifying neighborhoods. Sylvie Tissot (2011) examined how dog parks in a gentrifying neighborhood experiencing an influx of upper middle-class newcomers, were used to create social and spatial boundaries. Dog parks became an exclusive public space appropriated by gentrifiers as they imposed their class- based values and norms to define insiders and exclude others. Tissot (2011) shows how although gentrifiers in a neighborhood of a large US city chose to live in a diverse, mixed area, they utilized the dog park to draw boundaries between new residents and long-time, less advantaged residents. For example, gentrifiers mobilized around the dog park to deny access to those whom they deemed were not there for dogs, like the homeless and others they deemed ?deviant,? such as drug addicts and elderly people (Tissot, 2011, p. 272). Some gentrifiers expressed wariness toward anyone using the dog park who wasn?t a part of the community groups and thus was less likely to contribute their time and money (Tissot, 2011, p. 279). There are other examples of newcomers moving to gentrifying neighborhoods, purportedly in search of diversity. Grier and Perry (2018) studied how diversity shows up in gentrifying Washington, D.C. neighborhoods. They found that consumption opportunities and social interactions fostered a superficial, fleeting diversity as there was a clear divide and tensions between newcomers and long-time residents. Some, but not all, new amenities and services like dog parks were seen by long-time residents as created for newcomers, which made them feel less included in these spaces. This contributed to long-time residents? sense of loss of their neighborhood?s ?traditional cultural elements.? This phenomenon, often referred to as cultural displacement, has been examined by other scholars like Hyra (2014), who?s case study of Washington, D.C.?s Shaw/U Street neighborhood argues that the revitalization found in gentrifying neighborhoods can serve to politically disempower some long-time residents, cultivating feelings of isolation. In addition, there is evidence that long- time residents in gentrifying neighborhoods tend to decrease their civic engagement efforts (Hyra, 2017). 20 Tileva (2016) explores the role of dog parks and cultural displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods, specifically in Washington D.C.?s Shaw Dog Park. Prior to becoming a dog park, it was home to ?La Canchita,? a pick-up soccer field used by immigrants and neighborhood residents. The soccer field was a well-used and beloved community asset. With gentrification and the field?s replacement with a dog park, Tileva (2016) affirms the findings of other researchers like Grier and Perry (2018), that the priorities of newer residents took precedence over long-time residents, due to long-time residents? lack of political power and their struggle to effect the changes they desire. Similarly, Bliss (2017) affirms the tensions that arise in gentrifying neighborhoods between newcomers and long-time residents over establishing dog parks. Bliss (2017) specifically describes the conflict over establishing dog parks as an issue of who has the power and influence to make these decisions and whose needs matter most, which tend to be newcomers who are younger and whiter than the long-time residents. Dog parks have often been seen as markers of gentrification, but even poor neighborhoods not threatened with gentrification may want and benefit from dog parks (Schwartzmann, 2021). Jones (2019) draws the relationship between dog parks, green space, and inequity in the Lincoln Yards development in Chicago?s Northside. She delineates how access to dog parks is linked to park and green space access in general and how poor neighborhoods, like the Southside, are basically ?dog park deserts.? Examining these trends reveals the power dynamics, perceptions, and how community (or lack thereof) is formed and defined. The planning process for dog parks should include the various voices in the community, not just dog owners, to ensure that the public space doesn?t cultivate an environment of exclusivity. 21 PROJECT LIMITATIONS This project?s findings, with its focus on a small selection of dog parks over a short period of time, will represent only a subset of the overall trends of dog park travel preferences and usage. This study was conducted during University of Maryland?s spring semester, which runs from late January through early May. The first three months of the study period were exceptionally cold, which limited dog park use and therefore limited our user participant pool. This project should be extended through the summer and fall to explore seasonal trends in how visitors travel to this site and to other dog parks. Most water facilities were turned off during this time, so we were unable to observe this key element of dog park functionality. The study?s timing, during an off-peak season, may have also skewed the parking observations. 22 23 CASE STUDIES Eckington Dog Park Address 227 Harry Thomas Way NE, Washington D.C. 20002 Size 6,534 square feet (0.15 acres) Surface material Artificial turf with sprinklers and drainage throughout; concrete paving Seperate small & large dog areas No Other amenities Benches, large stone-like seats in the middle for owners/dogs Type Urban Park Operator Department of Parks and Recreation, NoMA BID, Eckington Parks & Arts Description Eckington Dog Park is located between the One501 apartments and the realigned Metropolitan Branch Trail. The park is accessible from R Street, NE and this is also where owners tend to park (the street dead-ends within 100 feet of the park). The elevated Metro Red Line passes by with a large concrete wall separating the dog park from the WMATA Brentwood Rail Yard. Passing trains are an extremely common visible and audible presence (see Photo X: Eckington Dog Park, looking southeast toward the train tracks) Our team expected this to be disruptive to verbal interactions, but we didn?t observe the trains affect conversation. The park can only be accessed directly by the trail, so there are no cars parked in front of it or at drop-off areas (see Figure X: Concept Map of Eckington Dog Park showing different transportation modes and different types of enclosure elements). This park was designed with input from the Eckington community. 24 The dog park is shaded during most of the winter due to the elevated Metro line and the One501 apartment complex, but in warmer months when the sun is higher in the sky, the park is often completely in sunlight with little or no shade. It is gated but accessible without restricted access. There are benches both outside and inside the dog park. There are frequent cyclists and pedestrians who walk, run, and cycle along the Metropolitan Branch Trail throughout the day. Built by the NoMa Parks Foundation (nomaparks.org), the park is managed through a public- private partnership between D.C.?s Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), the NoMA BID, and Eckington Parks & Arts, a non-profit organization that relies on community funding to work on green spaces in Eckington (see https://eckingtonparks.com/faqs for more details). There are suggested guidelines for donations based on one?s use of the park: $250 per year for daily use, $60 per year for those visiting once or twice a week, and $3 per visit for those who only visit occasionally. We didn?t ask anyone if they were contributors. Sprinkler and drainage systems help maintain the artificial turf, but we didn?t observe them in use: they might be active at night. Areas surrounding the park have a mix of pervious and impervious surfaces, with a paved trail and streets balanced by the nearby Alethia Tanner Park green space and a pervious wooden boardwalk over a water retention area (see Figure X: Boardwalk over a rainwater retention area near the Eckington Dog Park). North of the site is an industrial construction and transportation area with many trucks, which one group member observed as active very early in the morning. History The Eckington Dog Park site has undergone many changes over time. The original path of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad ran through this land, but when the boundaries of the Brentwood Rail Yard shifted east between 1988 and 1994, the former B&O footprint was turned into the Metropolitan Branch Trail. In December 2015, NoMa Parks Foundation acquired the parcel that is now the Alethia Turner Park. In May 2016, they acquired the dog park parcel, which was part of the same plot of land as the One501 apartment building. The park and the dog park were developed in 2019 along with One501 apartments. Demographics According to US Census Data from Social Explorer, a dramatic demographic change occurred in the area between 2010 and 2020. Census tract 87.02, which includes the Eckington Dog park at its southern tip, was 80.05% Black in 2010 (US Census Bureau, 2011). By 2020, it was only 43.79% Black (US Census Bureau, 2021). Meanwhile, the White population increased from 13.82% in 2010 to 36.71% in 2020 (US Census Bureau, 2011; US Census Bureau, 2021). In 2010, the median household income was $41,232, and by 2019, it was $81,883 (US Census Bureau, 2011; US Census Bureau, 2020). The data can?t tell how much displacement occurred due to these changes, because the population of the tract more than doubled from 1,599 in 2010 to 3,574 in 2020 (US Census Bureau, 2011; US Census Bureau, 2021). Construction of new apartment buildings may have led to an inflow of demographically different residents while leaving many older neighborhoods intact. Still, the demographic character of the neighborhood, and perhaps the power relations between groups in public spaces, has dramatically shifted. 25 Findings First, site visits involving direct and participant observation revealed that Eckington Dog Park is a highly social environment. During each of visit, we observed a somewhat consistent stream of interactions, including between people who didn?t enter the park together. Figure 1, Eckington Dog Park Conversations Over Time, is a graphic description of one busy half-hour period, during which at least 13 conversations occurred, an average of one conversation starting every 2.3 minutes. For this observation, we didn?t differentiate between those who conversing with someone they entered the park with (park entrance cohort) and those conversing with an unrelated park user. When we did isolate conversations that occurred between seemingly unrelated park users, we found several ways that these interactions took place. Dogs are one catalyst. For example, one woman following her dog entered a conversation with two other park users who had entered together. Three dogs clustered around the three humans, and at one point in the conversation, the woman crouched to pet the dogs, and the other two followed her lead in an apparent gesture of reciprocation. For this interaction, dogs appeared to be important. Some park users follow their dog, whereas others sit or stand in place. Benches may also be a catalyst. For example, during one observation, a Black woman leaned over to converse with a White woman sitting on an adjacent (but separate) bench. The distance between them was apparently close enough to start a conversation, but far enough that leaning in was required. Both women appeared to be in their 20s or 30s. Benches were also the site of most of the conversations recorded in Figure 1; however, many of these could have occurred within park entrance cohorts. The social scene at the park, however, is not always representative of the neighborhood?s racial composition and raises questions of gentrification and exclusion, or at least of differing preferences between groups. Our observations were mixed. On some site visits, we observed a complete lack of those who appeared to us to be African American or Black, despite the census tract being 47% Black in 2020. At other times, we observed a greater mix. Another notable observation relates to Figure 1. The smallest, most internal circle of each conversation center is a rough indication of the space occupied when the conversation began. The more external circles display more space occupied by these growing conversations. The circles labeled ?4? and ?6? represent one conversation that shifted location and lasted throughout the entire 30-minute observation, with some visitors leaving it and some joining it on a rolling basis. Four seemingly non-White users were observed in the park during this time, and none of them joined this central conversation. For a version of this drawing with more context in the site, see Figure 1: Conversation locations (centers) on Friday, April 8th, 2022 from 5:29 to 5:59 p.m. 26 Photo 1: Eckington Dog Park, looking southeast toward the train tracks Users we interviewed tended to value park design elements and cited them as reasons they prefer one park over another. Size, surface material, and cleanliness facilitated by design are a few key themes. For example, a professional dog walker we interviewed spoke positively about the way Eckington?s turf is kept clean by a built-in sprinkler system. A man-woman couple we interviewed also commented on the cleanliness, and spoke about how they dislike dog parks with gravel surfacing because it ?gets into the dogs?then it gets in the car, and your clothes.? Both the dog walker and the couple noted that Shaw dog park is small, and one member of the couple noted the relatively larger size of Eckington Dog Park as the primary reason they come to the park, while the other chose location as the primary reason. Interestingly, Shaw Dog Park is actually larger, so perhaps it is perceived as smaller, or was mistaken for a different park. A question for future research is if the Shaw Dog Park?s high fencing and relation to busy streets lead to a perception of a smaller size, as compared to the Eckington Dog Park?s openness to the larger Alethia Tanner Park and its distance from a busy road. In addition, both the dog walker and the couple had similar estimates of how often they conversed with others in the dog park, with one member of the couple estimating 40% of the time and the dog walker estimating 50% of the time. Figure 1: Conversations in Eckington Dog Park over time 27 Limitations Many of these findings could be bolstered by quantitative methods, particularly survey data. Qualitative interviews, for example, generally involve a smaller sample size and are more suited to depth of response than to representativeness or statistical analysis (Weiss, 1994, p. 3). This is certainly true in our case, where our interviews only involved three respondents, two of whom were white, one of whom was biracial, and all of whom were between 30 and 50 years old. One could imagine a survey with items such as preferred surface type for dog parks, preferred size for dog parks, and frequency of social interaction. Even so, our interviews revealed some things that might not be revealed in a survey, such as why gravel isn?t a preferred surface. The interviews also reveal questions a successful survey might ask. For example, our experience at Eckington would lead us to prioritize questions of surface material, size, and cleanliness. Conclusions and Recommendations Though Eckington Dog Park is urban and the smallest site studied, some general lessons can be applied to a wider variety of parks. Eckington?s size may be an advantage, compared to both larger and smaller parks. Dog owners reported preferring Eckington over other urban parks in D.C., and incorrectly perceived Eckington as larger. This leads to important questions concerning its design and unique placement in the urban landscape?it abuts an elevated train track but is amid a larger park and far from a busy automotive thoroughfare. Also, the closeness of benches and the enclosure of the defined space may help facilitate greater social interaction. The major findings are: ? Social interaction has the potential to be fostered by dog parks ? Additional seating or benches may help facilitate social interaction between users. The major recommendations are: ? Plenty of seating options should be available; it should be placed close enough for conversation to occur. ? Good maintenance is important for comfort and use of the space. Features such as sprinkler systems, trash cans, and waste bags contribute to a well-maintained park. ? Semi-permeable fencing allows views in and out of the park, but it must be high and solid to prevent dog toys from exiting the park when thrown or rolled. 28 Shaw Dog Park Address 1673 11th St NW, Washington D.C. 20001 Size 14,276 square feet Vestibule: 321 square feet Small dog area: 2,779 square feet Large dog area: 11,176 square feet Surface material Pea gravel and stone dust Seperate small & large dog areas Yes Other amenities Waste disposal stations, bulletin board, small pavilion, shade trees, ornamental vegetation, benches, wood planter boxes Type Urban II Park Operator DC Parks & Recreation Description The Shaw Dog Park is on the border of the Shaw and Logan Circle neighborhoods. The park area of 14,276 square feet makes it the largest off-leash dog park in Washington, D.C. (Bringfido, tonitileva. com) It is within the Cardozo Playground, which also includes adjacent basketball courts, skate park and artificial turf field. It is bordered to the north by the tall red brick wall of the Tenth Street Baptist Church, and on the east by a tall black solid fence that blocks views to the adjacent high school athletic fields. Each of these elements contribute to the character of the space and its presence at the street on the west. Park hours are typically dawn to dusk, but lighting was recently added to allow the park to stay open until 9:00 pm (D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation). There are 25 parking spaces available on the right side of the two-way road adjacent to the complex, but there is no parking specifically for the dog park. The spaces are available for free with a two- hour limit, but drivers must pull up and park in reverse. The area has wide sidewalks, with a mix of mature and young trees. A wide buffer zone between the sidewalk and the park, about as wide as the sidewalk, is filled with small shrubs and flowers. There are only a couple trees in this zone, perhaps with the intention of maintaining a visual connection between the street and the dog park. New housing development across the street from the park was built or renovated between 2004 and 2019 (zillow.com). The park comprises two areas, a roughly 11,000-square foot area intended for large dogs and a roughly 3,000-square foot area for small dogs. People unleash and leash their dogs before entering or exiting the park in a small, fenced vestibule of about 300 square feet. This space has one entry/ exit door from the sidewalk and two doors leading to the separate spaces that make up the park. The surface is a three-layer system consisting of a sand/soil base, river rock to allow for more permeability, and a top layer of pea gravel and stone dust. The park rules address what is allowed, prohibited, capacity limits, collar display requirements, and leash type preferences. 29 Eight benches and ten planter boxes rim the park?s perimeter. Only two benches are in shade. However, as the trees mature, most of the other seating options will be shaded. The planter boxes are offset approximately six feet from the fence allowing dogs to run around and behind them, and people to sit. The seating and planters around the edges leaves the center open for dogs to run freely. Due to the park?s size, there isn?t much linear space for dogs to run, but they make do by taking laps. There is one shade canopy at the park?s southern edge with benches underneath. This canopy bridges the areas for small and large dogs. In the Spring, during our observations, it only cast shade onto the large dog area because of its orientation. History Like many dog parks, the Shaw Dog Park was born out of a community desire for a place to take their dogs and let them play off leash. According to Lillian Iversen, the treasurer for the Shaw Dog Park Association, prior to construction of the park, residents throughout the neighborhood informally created their own parks by taking over empty lots and green spaces to let their dogs run and play. This posed safety and legal issues and the community recognized it wasn?t a sustainable model. Community members petitioned then mayor Adrian Fenty through a variety of organizations to secure a piece of property for D.C.?s first official dog park. They identified a portion of land of the nearby defunct middle school as a good site and successfully established the Shaw Dog Park. The park remained in its original location and shape until 2019 when during the pandemic the park was closed to accommodate the reconstruction of the new Banneker High School. The school?s new athletic fields had the most impact on the Shaw Dog Park, and to accommodate the new fields, the Shaw Dog Park was redesigned. This process was a joint project of the DPR, DCPS, DGA and the Shaw Dog Park Association, who represent the neighborhood for this park. The redesign updated and modernized park features, adding new benches, a water fountain with an attached dog bowl, and a shade structure. Also, new surface material addressed drainage problems. The park reopened in October 2021 (wamu.org, Shaw Dog Park Facebook Page) with the same square footage, with some new features added. Findings The research findings are based on a variety of qualitative methodologies. Data was mostly obtained through direct observation, participant observation, soundscapes, archival research, and interviews. Archival research revealed that the Shaw neighborhood was inhabited by majority Black with White residents and the Logan Circle neighborhood was mostly White with a small Hispanic presence. We found that users of the Shaw Dog Park more closely mirrored the demographics of the Logan Circle neighborhood, with a majority White presence, with a smaller Hispanic and Asian representation. Additionally, based on few interactions with park visitors, we observed most visitors appeared to be between the ages 25 and 40, with a near equal proportion of males and females. A soundscape analysis revealed that the dull roar of vehicles driving by was one of the loudest and most consistent noises present at this urban dog park. Other sounds that stood out were birds chirping, basketballs bouncing, people playing games in adjacent athletic fields, skateboards going by on the sidewalk, and the occasional barking dog. Signposts of gentrification were readily apparent. All the housing across the street is new and stylistically modern, clearly upscale luxury apartments. They are in good condition, indicating that they have been built recently. This style contrasts with the classic colorful rowhomes of the Shaw neighborhood, making it even clearer that these are new and set apart from existing buildings. 30 When observing the behavior of the occupants, we noted a much higher level of social interaction between people we perceived as strangers than one would expect outside the park. We observed that the presence of dogs helped people feel more comfortable meeting and conversing with strangers. This fact, the dogs? energy creates a lively and welcoming social dynamic in and around the park. It?s also worth noting that most people were talking in groups of three or more, making seating that can accommodate groups of this size an important feature to include in dog park design. Large groups stood around the perimeter of the area, in the fence?s shade. We observed that benches in the open were less favored when the sun was out, and people congregated under the pavilion or along the taller, opaque fence to the west. People?s behavior seems to be influenced by the park?s same physical factors and features that we used to help categorizing dog park typologies. The Shaw Dog Park is just under 15,000 square feet, and this smaller size seems to generate more social interaction among occupants. This works especially well when the park is crowded, as proximity seems to promote a higher degree of comfort and conversation. The compactness also allowed people to stay stationary, either standing or sitting, while keeping an eye on their dogs anywhere in the park. Additionally, the small and large dog areas are not really used as such, through our observation, the small dog area seems to be only used when a dog is getting too rambunctious and needs to be separated from the other dogs. A consistent theme in the archival research, interviews, and direct observation was the importance of surface material. Complaints about the surface material date back to 2013, but despite these complaints, pea gravel remains as the surface material. This can likely be attributed to DPR research, according to Lillian Iversen, treasurer of the Shaw Dog Park Association, who was involved in the park?s recent redesign. According to her, DPR researched the topic and determined that three level system?a sand base layer, a river rock substrate, and a stone dust and gravel surface?is ideal for a dog park, at least at this site. Its advantages include staying cool in direct sunlight and keeping odors down. Odor management may also be attributed to the regular surface treatments that the Shaw Dog Park Association oversees. A disadvantage of this surface is that it is exceptionally dusty, especially when new. While it has improved over time, we heard reports of dust from the park settling on cars up to a block and a half away. The airborne dust can make it hard to breathe after spending time at the park, especially for people with respiratory issues. Multiple complaints were found across multiple platforms (Bringfido, Foursquare City Guide Online) as well from owners who complained about needing to clean the dust off their dogs after a visit to the park. Limitations, Conclusions and Recommendations In conclusion, the Shaw Dog Park is an exemplary community asset that expands the research on small, urban dog parks. It has water fountains, waste disposal stations, bulletin boards, a small pavilion, benches, and wood planter boxes. It?s irregular shape and location adjacent to a variety of uses helps develop recommendations for physical and theoretical features highlighted through archival, participatory, and observational research, and in the interview process. The fence varies along the perimeter depending on the adjacent uses. The varying conditions of the fence accommodate the needs of the pets and people engaging in surrounding activities, such as the track, basketball courts, and skate park. It has a black mesh along the track and courts to minimize dogs being distracted by balls, as well as to keep the dust from the park?s surface material within the dog park grounds. The rest of the fencing allows a visual connection between the park and surroundings. 31 As seen in multiple phases of this project, the concerns for shading and seating were of utmost importance. The wooden box planters and benches offer two seating options. The planters? trees are intended to provide summer shade. This is a feature will be tested in the current design during summer this year. The meshed black fence also provides shade, but there are few seating options along that edge. The one shared pavilion between the small and large dog parks acts as a year-round shading device. These features highlight the importance of options and flexible design, allowing people to make themselves comfortable as they engage in park activities, as well as long-lasting options that can adapt to future conditions. This park also demonstrated that community engagement in the design process is very important, the active community participation at the Shaw Dog Park have helped improve and adapt the park to the evolving neighborhood. The surfacing material of this park illuminates the advantages and disadvantages of the pea gravel and stone dust as a design option for future parks. The functionality and user experience of these surface materials was a nuisance for some visitors as it can easily spread through the neighborhood, cars, and homes. However, because the material may change and improve as it compacts over time, and it is efficient in addressing liquid runoff and odor dispersion, it can be recognized as a durable and useful material. The park?s irregular shape and location provides an example that should be compared with other more regularly shaped parks. It was found that small corners tend to accumulate unseen dog waste but promote dog-to-dog interaction, because the running paths aren?t influenced by space distribution. Based on interviews, linear parks may be preferred for fetching and running. Regularly shaped parks lead dogs to run freely in the center and owners to stay along the perimeter, while irregularly shaped parks may offer agility equipment as a central activity. Further research into the implications of shape on park activity is required as these conclusions are drawn mainly from user interviews and their experience with other parks. It can be concluded, however, that dog owners seek different types of parks depending on the activity they want to engage in. Lastly, this case study emphasizes the topics of maintenance and the trial-and-error theory. Keeping this space maintained and its community engaged requires the ongoing involvement and partnership of the city and the community. These stakeholders must come together and establish roles and responsibilities. This interaction is essential to maintain the infrastructure, as well as the day-to- day operation of the space. Furthermore, the trial-and-error theory highlights the importance of community feedback and involvement in addressing the needs of the space over time. Incorporating flexible features that are easy to redesign or replace has allowed the community to try new options in response to changes that have occurred. As noted, they must be tested through the seasons to continue to address changing conditions. It is important to note that a dog park as an amenity can change over time; future parks should be designed accordingly. To our surprise, the park?s shape was recognized as a defining factor of this typology and it opened further discussion on the shapes and uses experience in neighboring parks. Further research into this topic can develop a set of amenity combinations and infrastructure elements that can adapt to the park context. Interviews also highlighted the importance of the city?s and the community?s involvement in park maintenance. A deeper observation of this interaction would provide insight into the power dynamics that influence the experience at the dog park and its surroundings. Lastly, the Shaw Dog Park case study highlights the changing conditions and needs of a public space, highlighting the need to foresee how park use may change and how flexible the design can help it adapt. 32 Takoma Dog Park Address 300 Van Buren Street, NW Washington D.C. 20001 Size 21, 780 square feet (0.5 acres) Surface material Finely ground gravel Seperate small & large dog areas Yes Other amenities Water fountain, disposable waste bags, recycling and trash, artificial play equipment, benches Type Suburban I Park Operator D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation, Takoma Brightwood Dog Park Organization Description The Takoma Dog Park is an off-leash dog park in the Takoma neighborhood, which borders the City of Takoma Park, Maryland. The park is relatively new, opened in April 2021. The park is next to the Takoma Community and Aquatic Center, a facility that serves all age groups, from toddlers to seniors. The dog park is set back from the road and is bordered by tennis courts, Coolidge High School, the Promised Land Baptist Church, and single-family houses. On the church?s east side, on 4th Street NW, diagonally across from the dog park, is the Takoma Playground, Mini-Pitch, and Skatepark. The dog park is accessible by car, bus, and Metro (a 10-minute walk from the Red Line?s Takoma Station) and street parking is available. The park?s surface material is finely ground gravel, and there are separately fenced sections for small and large dogs. 33 History In 2015, a group of neighbors from the Takoma D.C./Brightwood/Manor Park areas created the Northern Ward 4 Dog Park Group and began to lobby for a new dog park (Thiel, 2016). They subsequently formed the Takoma Brightwood Dog Park Organization, a nonprofit, and raised funds (Johnson, 2020). Proponents listed project benefits including community well-being, neighborhood aesthetics, and a potential increase in the area?s formally registered dogs (safety and government fee generation) (?Why a Dog Park,? n.d.). The group gathered petition signatures, attended ANC meetings, held community meetings, and tried to engage with those who opposed the dog park. Their first application and proposed site were rejected, but after seven years, the group was successful. They raised funds, worked with local council members, and ultimately reached a compromise for an alternative site with DPR and the community (Thiel, 2016). The site was previously used as a staging ground for modular classrooms during Coolidge High School?s renovation. It was underutilized, but the campaign for a dog park at the Takoma Recreation Center still met opposition, citing gentrification, fear of dog waste, and neighborhood change (Alexander, 2017). According to an interview with Michael Cohen, president of the Northern Ward 4 Dog Park Group, the Friends of Takoma Recreation Center group was a significant opponent to the project, citing concerns such as ?people should be letting their dogs run in their own space and not in public space? the space should be only be used by humans, not by dogs? [and] there?s not enough space [for a dog park].? The Northern Ward 4 Dog Park Group demonstrated a degree of flexibility to meet the needs of various special interest groups. For example, they notified nearby homeowners of possible sites, relocated the proposed site multiple times, and finding a suitable location for everyone in the community (Cohen, 2016). Their application pointed out that the Ward 4 zip code of 20011 has the highest number of registered dogs (253) in D.C., to justify the need for another dog park in the area (Cohen, 2015). 34 Findings Based on participant observation, the dog park appears to be an inviting space that is tranquil, relaxing, and part of a larger environment that helps foster community connection. The dog park serves a mix of residents of different ages, ethnicities, and races. From our observations and brief interactions with other dog owners the dog park seems available and accessible to those who want to use it. There didn?t appear to be any sort of resident policing of people coming in and out of the dog park area. From observations alone, we didn?t learn much about the ways dog parks may contribute to forces of gentrification or how the dog park fosters inclusion and exclusion between long-time and new residents. We did discover recurrent patterns of dog park-user demographics and modes of interactions between users. From observation, most park users are young professionals and families. We didn?t see any presence of elderly dog park users, however our observations were limited to Friday afternoons. Even when examining the surrounding area, which includes the Takoma Recreation Center and the park across the street, there was little presence of elderly people. We were able to address one of our research questions: Who are dog parks for; who do they serve? In this case, the park was open to all people with dogs, not just those who live in the neighborhood. The gate remains unlocked, and access isn?t limited to Takoma Park residents. This approach to designing and installing dog parks is effective in fostering a public space that is inviting and welcoming to all dog park users. Based on our interview with Cohen, the D.C. government?s dog park approval process was a vehicle for connecting neighbors around the idea of a park, what purpose it could serve, and who it would be for. This process is critical for generating community support and community use of the park. Prince George?s Parks should consider how community involvement could foster a greater sense of belonging, particularly among long-time residents. As Cohen reflected, opposition to a project like this is to be expected. ?What does this do for me? How?s this good for me? And I think that that then gets?categorized into?who?s doing it and why are they doing it?? Involving community members in the planning process can turn skeptics into advocates. As to who uses the dog park, Cohen said ?it?s a total mix of?age, race, class? the whole nine yards.? This is somewhat consistent with our observations, however further observation is needed to more fully demonstrate this point. He also shared that the group hopes to consider additional programming for the park to foster a sense of community, and that even without programming, small groups have formed based on the time of day and week people usually visit the park (i.e. ?I go there every morning or I go there every evening or? ?we?re the Saturday group??). 35 Limitations One limitation of our brief participant observation the lack of time to understand how dog parks can foster inclusion or exclusion between newer and long-time residents; we couldn?t learn which park users were new or long-time residents. Also, people who use the park may not live in the neighborhood. Additionally, our group observations took place primarily on Friday afternoons, and limited a full view of usage. Further, an interview with a member of the Takoma Recreation Center would have been useful. Cohen identified this group as a primary opponent of the dog park, and their perspective would add o a full understanding of community views. Conclusions and Recommendations The way a dog park is introduced to communities is imperative in gaining acceptance; it can help people understand that the resource is for them and the benefit of the community. The creation of the Takoma Dog Park took more than seven years. Throughout the process, there were efforts to ensure there communication with the surrounding community as early and as often as possible using flyers, emails, meetings, and designed to provide people with time and a way to participate. We also found that dog parks could be spaces open to all people with no community-specific access restrictions. At Takoma, there is no need to enter a code on a keypad or any sort of active policing that ensures dog park users are neighborhood residents. This approach to designing and installing dog parks can foster a safe public space that is inviting to all dog park users. This finding is significant; the literature review shows that gentrifying dog parks are a point of division between new residents and long-time, less advantaged residents. Specifically, gentrifiers may turn dog parks into exclusive spaces to impose class-based values and norms to define insiders and exclude others. The process for introducing and creating a dog park should involve significant neighborhood involvement and direct community outreach, as undertaken for the Takoma Dog Park. The D.C. government process requires community outreach, which was critical to introducing the resource, getting community support, creating education opportunities, and providing time and space for people to voice their concerns. 36 Ellsworth Dog Park Address 621 Ellsworth Drive, Silver Spring, MD Size 20,000 square feet (.45 acres) Surface material Primarily mulch, with some areas of concrete paving and artificial turf Seperate small & large dog areas Small dog area: (2,800 square feet) Large dog area: (17,000 square feet) Other amenities Artificial turf play mounds, water fountains, benches, shade canopy Type Suburban II Park Operator Montgomery County Description The Ellsworth Dog Park is a well-used dog park within Silver Spring?s Ellsworth Urban Park. The dog park has separated large and small dog play areas with signs at the entrance directing which space to use. The signage also lists dog park rules and COVID-specific guidance. Interestingly, the COVID guidance was posted in both English and Spanish although the official rules were only in English. The larger park includes a playground, tennis courts, picnic areas, and vegetated areas. The park is in a primarily residential area a few blocks from the commercial core of downtown Silver Spring. The park has limited parking (shared with other community facilities), though a significant portion of park visitors seem to walk there. The dog park is distinguished by its unique topography; it is primarily on a slope, which made it a previously under-utilized space. Several existing mature trees have been left in place. Field observations suggested that the park is used by dog owners with a wide age range and of various races and ethnicities, consistent with the diverse population in the surrounding area. Some visitors appeared to have coordinated visits with friends and acquaintances and overall, people seemed to cluster around seating at the top of the park to chat while watching their dogs play. The dog park seemed to be clean and free of odors with little visible dog waste. Plastic trash cans with lids are provided inside and outside the enclosed area, and the park also provides bags. Signs at the entrance indicate that the dog park is closed for maintenance for about three hours every Monday morning. History The Ellsworth Dog Park opened in 2016 as the first urban dog park in Montgomery County. The county operated five existing dog parks at the time, but all in larger regional parks outside the Beltway and not easily walkable (Zimmerman, 2016). In developing Ellsworth Dog Park, planning staff conducted extensive community outreach with nearby residents and community associations, including a public meeting in 2013, which was attended by nearly 50 community members. Their comments were influenced alterations to the proposed concept. For example, the dog park entrance was placed farther from the playground, a small dog area was added, and provisions for lighting were added. According to the project architects, the park?s total cost was approximately $40,000 (Zimmerman, 2016). 37 Figure 2. Conceptual plan for Ellsworth Dog Park source: Montgomery County Department of Parks, 2014 (p.10) Findings The Ellsworth Dog Park suggests useful lessons on site selection and design of dog parks in an urban area, as well as community engagement around dog park planning. Because this was the county?s first urban dog park, there is extensive documentation on the Planning Department?s process and rationale for choosing this site. The county evaluated sites for their environmental impact in a few categories: the need to clear forest or remove older trees, proximity of residences (buffer zone of at least 200 feet), and location within floodplains or riparian areas. The Ellsworth Urban Park site was selected because it has good drainage, isn?t adjacent to waterways, and required clearing of only smaller shrubs. Existing specimen trees were preserved and incorporated into the park design. From a stormwater perspective, sloping topography for a dog park is advantageous, as it contributes to water drainage. To mitigate potential water quality issues from waste being washed down this slope, a bioretention facility was placed along the edge of the dog park (Montgomery County Department of Parks, 2014, p. 6-10). Ellsworth Dog Park also illustrates how to avoid conflicts with existing residential uses while locating a dog park in an area of relatively dense development. The county chose this location partly for its proximity to existing and future high density residential development. A survey of approximately two dozen respondents at one of the public planning meetings showed most respondents planned to walk to the proposed dog park (Montgomery County Department Department of Parks, 2014, p.8). Current observations confirm this; many dog park users arrive on foot, suggesting that they live nearby and walk to the park, a condition that seemed unique among the dog parks studied. In addition, the dog park seems well-used, with highest visitor counts on weekends and evenings but some use even on damp weekday afternoons. In short, the county?s expectation that urban dog parks would be well-used by residents of adjacent high-density residential areas and become a popular amenity seems to have been borne out. 38 Ellsworth Dog Park is buffered from existing residences on three sides, with Colesville Road along the fourth. Dominic Quattrocchi, one of the project?s planners, noted that sites with existing ?nuisance? uses (e.g., noise sources) such as roads or railroads are ideal for dog parks to prevent complaints about potential noise pollution. These complaints are especially likely in quiet suburban neighborhoods where the sound of concentrated dog activity may be particularly out of place. Figure 3. There are no private residences adjacent to the dog park site. The dog park area is near surface parking, the former Silver Spring Library, and other recreational uses. The park?s other uses (tennis courts, playground, sitting area) complement the dog park. Note the sightline between the dog park and the playground, though their entrances are not adjacent. source: Montgomery County Department of Parks, 2014;(p.7) Using part of an existing park facility not widely used by park visitors allowed the county to quickly implement the Ellsworth Dog Park. According to Quattrocchi, the area that?s now the dog park featured ?antiquated? landscaping with trellises and benches installed in the 1980s. The area was primarily used by those experiencing homelessness or others Quattrocchi characterized as ?ne?er- do-wells? due to its topography and somewhat secluded nature. While there were some concerns about removing open space from the park, some park users saw this area as a safety risk and welcomed its reallocation to a new use. According to Quattrocchi, overall park usage has increased after the dog park was developed. In part, he attributes this to the synergies between uses, as the dog park draws new users to the park, who use the dog park and other amenities. In addition, he indicated that perception of park safety has improved and calls to park police have declined. Despite the relative popularity of the proposed dog park, however, Quattrocchi recalled that only those in opposition turned out to the final planning board hearing on its approval, reflecting the challenges of mobilizing those in favor of dog parks. The county?s efforts to establish a second urban dog park have met much fiercer opposition. The process has been contentious, with significant opposition from some community groups, neighbors, and users of Norwood Local Park in Bethesda. The county began outreach in October 2020, held a large virtual community meeting on November 10, 2020, and launched an online survey that remained open for about two months, collecting mostly negative comments. Though the dog park concept plan was approved by the county?s planning board in May 2021, it was denied funding by the county executive in March of this year in response to continued community opposition, effectively shelving the project. 39 This study reviewed testimony provided by community members at the May 2021 Planning Board meeting and found that the most common and urgent concern was the dog park?s perceived impact on their quality of life. The observed speakers argued that the dog park would create noise pollution, and remove valued open space used by area residents. Dog park designs are very site-specific. However, several lessons learned from the Ellsworth Dog Park may be broadly applicable. Firstly, surface material is an important design consideration; each material has pros and cons from an environmental standpoint. Pervious materials (e.g. mulch, grass, gravel, permeable pavers) allow for water infiltration, key for effective stormwater management. However, maintenance can be a challenge. For example, grass may not be sustainable in heavily used dog parks. Quattrochi said that most of Ellsworth Dog Park was originally planted with grass, which didn?t survive. The area was then mulched. Mulch and gravel also require regular maintenance. At Ellsworth, wood and asphalt berms and plastic netting are used on the slope to help keep the mulch in place. However, site observation indicated that the woodchips seem to wash downhill after rain. In contrast, impervious material and hardscape, such as concrete, is more durable and easier to maintain. It may be well-suited for entrances, high-traffic areas, and to provide accessible pathways. At Ellsworth, the entrance and seating areas, as well as most of the small dog area, feature concrete and artificial turf. However, both these materials retain heat in summer, contributing to heat island effects, and prevent stormwater infiltration. This is also a negative for dog park users; the primary source of negative online comments and reviews of Ellsworth Dog Park was insufficient shade to keep hard surfaces cool in summer. Permeable pavers such as kennel tiles offer some of the advantages of both permeable and impermeable surfaces but are expensive. While grass may not survive in highly used dog parks as a surfacing material, Ellsworth demonstrates the viability and benefit of incorporating trees and vegetation into the park design to improve environmental performance and to provide shade, an important amenity. According to Quattrochi, the critical root zone of any tree in a dog park requires significant protection from canine activity. At Ellsworth, to protect existing specimen trees, they were placed in raised planters with masonry edges. Dogs use these walls as an extension of the play and agility equipment in this part of the park, and people often sit on them. Smaller trees and shrubs were moved to the park?s perimeter to provide shade and a buffer. Placing the dog park within a larger urban park illustrates a balance between integration and sufficient distance, particularly from playgrounds. Although the dog park has clear sightlines to the playground and other recreational facilities, the entrance gate is directly off the main road, so dog owners don?t need to cut through the playground area. The distance from the other uses, creates an impression of greater separation. These strategies likely contributed to a relatively smooth public engagement process. In contrast, opponents of the Norwood Dog Park expressed anger at the potential placement of the park close to the younger children?s playground, and were particularly concerned that circulation to the dog park passed directly by the playground, raising the potential for conflicts or that children scared of dogs wouldn?t feel comfortable at the playground. 40 Conclusions and Recommendations The contrast between public response to the Ellsworth and proposed Norwood Dog Parks provide lessons on considering existing parks as candidate dog park sites. As Quattrocchi suggested, it can be useful to consider sites in areas that already have some source of noise and aren?t purely low-density residential. This guidance may be useful to Prince George?s County, although the Parks Department points out that their parks are in lower density residential areas not an urban context like Ellsworth Park. Some of the strategies used in other parks to buffer noise from dog parks in quieter areas may be necessary. This case study also suggests the importance of studying a park to determine whether an unprogrammed area is truly unused or underused before recommending it as a candidate site. Unprogrammed spaces can be highly valued for picnics and gatherings, sports, and other informal uses. Key environmental conclusions include that dog parks shouldn?t be built in environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, streams, floodplains) or areas that require significant tree removal or landscape disturbance. However, many Prince George?s parks are in floodplains, so these criteria may not be completely viable. Further research is needed into how dog parks can be successfully designed in such conditions. Additionally, a well-designed dog park should include trees and vegetation. As discussed, trees help support climate goals by reducing CO2 emissions and they provide shade, which is often a welcome feature in dog parks. However, vegetation in dog parks requires careful selection and design. Existing mature trees (specimen trees) can be retained by protecting the critical root zone, while smaller species of trees and vegetation are good for the park?s borders and edges. Further research into tree species suited for high-traffic areas, or resistant to canine activity and urine, would be useful. From both environmental and practical standpoints, every surface material has pros and cons, as discussed above. Thus, a mix of pervious and impervious surface materials may be the best solution for most dog parks. The right mix depends on the size and expected use of the dog park?grass is not likely to survive in a heavily used, compact dog park such as Ellsworth. This case study shows that areas of unusual topography, such as a significant slope, can still make for successful dog parks. However, they may create additional maintenance challenges as surfacing material may shift downhill. 41 Heurich Dog Park Address 6001 Ager Road, Hyattsville, Maryland Size 36,000 square feet (>1 acre) Surface material Gravel, grass, dirt Seperate small & large dog areas Yes Other amenities Water fountain, agility course, seating Type Suburban II, Level I Park Operator Prince George?s County Description The Heurich Dog Park is part of the larger Heurich Community Park with an area allocated specifically for dogs of about one acre surrounded by a wire fence. There are two areas within the park to separate small and large dogs for safe, off-leash play. The park also includes covered and uncovered seating for the owners and water fountains for pets in both sections. The section for the larger dogs also includes an agility course. History Heurich Park is one of the oldest parks in Prince George?s County. The dog park was added at the request of the community and was completed in November 2009. It is one of the few dog parks in the county that doesn?t require a membership. However, dogs are required to be registered with the county. 42 Demographics The area surrounding Heurich Park is primarily residential housing consisting of single-family housing and multi-family apartments. The area was developed more recently, with most households moving in between 2010 and 2014. It is predominantly Hispanic and Black families. There is also an elementary school in the area (Edward M. Felegy Elementary) and a middle school (Nicholas Orem Middle School). The majority of the population in this zip code is under 40 years old. Findings It would be difficult to ignore the sounds and activity from the major road that runs adjacent to Heurich Park. The intersection of Ager Road and Nicholson Street is a busy crossroads in Hyattsville, roughly four miles northeast of the D.C. line. While it is a busy road, dogs and humans alike can easily tune out the noise. The park is roughly 20 feet from the sidewalk. There is also heavy forest to the west, which likely serves as a sound barrier between the park and the nearby Metro track and other fields. Video data showed that most activity was not in the park but vehicles in the street. On both days we observed the site, there weren?t many dogs in the large or small dog parks to give further insight on behavior within the park. From a public health perspective, while parks are undoubtedly beneficial for a neighborhood, this one?s proximity to the road is a point of concern. Aural data gave insight the park?s accessibility to the road and hinted at explaining the relationship between the park and the surrounding neighborhood. Even located near mostly single-family housing, park attendance is minimal. From a public health perspective, this lack of connection between the park and the neighborhood is key to interpreting the site. Limitations The obvious weakness of these site visits was the lack of consistency in park visitors, both people and dogs. The first site visit, on a Saturday, had significantly more animal activity compared to the second visit. While no official research visit was conducted on weekdays, a team member familiar with the park assures the team that it is not heavily used. She?s been to the park with her dog several times prior to this project and rarely saw more than two dogs at either park on weekdays; this should be confirmed through an official site visit by the team. Conclusions and Recommendations Recommendations are based on field research, interviews, and analysis, and are intended to improve the health and wellness of dog park users. Our primary recommendation is to clearly post park rules at the entrances to ensure acceptable behavior from visitors. After an initial presentation to county staff, we discovered that this should be the case. For reasons unknown, the rules are not posted. In addition to posting the rules, occasional site visits should ensure the rules are visible (prominent, no text fading, etc.) to all patrons. Second, our research strongly suggests that parking availability will support park use. Multiple users were observed arriving by vehicle and very few users accessed the park by walking. Seeing that the park is surrounded by an apartment complex and a large single-family residential neighborhood, the lack of walking attendees is particularly noteworthy. 43 Waggertail Dog Park Address 6599 51st Avenue, Riverdale, Maryland Size 48,000 square feet (1.1 acres, GIS measurement) 87,000 square feet (2 acres, Waggertail pamphlet) Surface material Dirt and grass Seperate small & large dog areas Yes Other amenities Benches, water fountain, registration required for dogs Type Suburban III Park Operator Prince George?s County Description Waggertail Dog Park is tucked away in a corner of Prince George?s County?s Riverdale Community Park. It is set back about 150 feet from the street, with a baseball field to the east and woods to the north. Ample street parking and several designated Riverdale Community Park parking lots are available to dog park users and two spaces along 51st Avenue are reserved for persons or dogs with disabilities. While the County Route 14 bus stops near a park entrance, the prohibition of dogs on County transit impedes access to the dog park via public transit (Prince George?s County, n.d.; Prohibited Conduct, 1986). Waggertail Dog Park has separate small and large dog sections with grass and dirt surface material. The two areas share a fenced-in entry area with a water fountain. The park requires prior registration of dogs to use the facilities (?Waggertail Dog Park?, n.d.). In three separate visits we observed several large puddles and a muddy ditch adjacent to the path leading into the dog park and a large muddy path comprising the back half of the dog park. These observations were corroborated by publicly available internet reviews, which are discussed in the Findings section. Figure 4. Concept Map of Waggertail Park and surrounding Riverdale Community Park 44 The research team was particularly interested in transportation. The site was observed throughout Spring 2022, and the team recorded the movement of visitors in and out of the site and any relevant site conditions (like parking availability). These observations were timed to capture site movements and conditions at varying times of day. The research team conducted informal and semi-formal interviews with visitors at the site to record visitor travel-related experiences and find frequently mentioned elements. The research team also examined archival data including Yelp and Google reviews, Google Peak Times historic data, historic imagery, and any other indicators of site design and use that might shed light on travel preferences or use. Demographics According to the Census Bureau, as of April 2020, 56% of the population of the surrounding community of Riverdale Park identifies as Hispanic, 17% identifies as white only, and 21% identify as African American or Black. In 2019, the median household income was $84,695, approximately equal to Maryland?s median household income (?U.S.C.B. QuickFacts: Riverdale Park town, Maryland?, 2022; ?U.S.C.B. QuickFacts: Maryland?, 2022). History Riverdale Community Park, the larger park surrounding Waggertail Dog Park, was established prior to 1957 (?Historic Aerials?, n.d.). Waggertail Dog Park was founded in a partnership between the Town of Riverdale and M-NCPPC, which created the dog park in 2016. Judy Glaes, to whom the park is dedicated, led community dog park advocate efforts, but struggled to gain support from several neighbors directly across from the park on 51st Street (?Waggertail Dog Park?, n.d.). These homeowners worried about increased noise and parking shortages, and their concerns were addressed by placing zoned parking on one side of the street. When a neighbor who lives directly adjacent to Waggertail was asked in 2022 for her thoughts on living next to the park she replied, ?It?s fine. There are no issues.? Findings The 146 Google reviewers (n.d.) from the past three years rate the dog park as 4.4 out of five possible stars. According to online reviews and in-person conversations, users like the park?s large fenced-in field, the separate spaces for large and small dogs, and the required dog registration model. Conversely, reviewers say it?s difficult to find the dog park within the larger Riverdale Community Park, there is lack of trees or shade within the park, inadequate lighting, and a poorly designed water fountain that makes it hard fill dog bowls. Users also noted, and observations confirmed, significant drainage issues and mud, especially in the back section of the park. Publicly available GIS data doesn?t indicate the presence of wetlands or floodplains within the dog park, so the drainage issues are likely related to stormwater runoff (?PGAtlas.Com?, 2022). We also noted that the Prince George?s County dog park rules are posted but are faded and difficult to read. One interviewee, a frequent user, was unsure about ownership and responsibility and that, as a regular user, he would appreciate an onsite location where information about the dog park was posted. Because Waggertail is located on a quiet residential side street, our research team observed minimal car or bus noise. Most Waggertail visitors drove to the dog park. Guests parked in ample street parking spots or walked into the dog park. Walking visitors were frequent, which is notable given the low residential density of the surrounding neighborhood. After arriving on site, most dog park visitors crossed the park on foot using varying routes, favoring user-forged paths and ignoring formal paved sidewalks and trails (see Figure 5. Most of the dog park users appeared to be white, despite only 17% of the surrounding population identifying as white only. 45 Figure 5. Desired Paths of Waggertail Dog Park Users The research team spoke with a regular user of the park who lives less than a mile away; he walks or drives to the dog park, with no ?rhyme or reason? as to which transportation method he uses. In the early morning when it is still dark, he often drives to the dog park, suggesting that his transportation decisions are affected by environmental factors. He noted that most dog park users drive to Waggertail, and there is a contingent of four to six people who live across East West Highway and will often carpool or bring each other?s dogs. The effects of environmental factors on transportation method choice and carpooling were both largely excluded from dog park access literature and are potential areas for future study. This user repeatedly mentioned the need for trees (or some other type of cover) and lights in Waggertail, citing seasonal weather conditions ( ?dangerous? summer temperatures and dark fall and winter months). He enjoys all the space at Waggertail, saying that ?even if [my apartment] did have a small dog park, I would still [go to Waggertail],? partially because he believed that ?dogs need the space to run.? This perspective was shared by many Google reviewers and suggests widespread appreciation for larger dog parks. When asked about general dog park design preferences, he cited his interest in a ?covered or indoor dog park? with ?climate controlled access,? expressing that an amenity like that would be a ?huge selling point? for him when looking for a place to live. He also noted that he was unsure about ownership and responsibility regarding Waggertail Dog Park and that, as a regular user, would appreciate a spot where information about the dog park was posted on site. We observed one dog owner using the dedicated accessible parking space and a private ramp to help a seemingly disabled dog out of a car. In terms of human accessibility, we observed a young man on crutches who successfully accessed the park, although with an apparent struggle to get across the soggy surrounding grass. Park bench use varied. During most visits, few dog park users used the five benches within the large dog area, where all our observations occurred. 46 Limitations There are limitations in the publicly available data collected and the observations that our group made regarding Waggertail. User reviews, which we relied to understand public opinion about the park, are subjective and share non-validated information, which limits the credibility of our findings. Further, we are missing perspectives on Waggertail Dog Park from community members who don?t use the park. On-site observations and interviews may also be skewed by the subjectivity and positionality of observers. The informal interviews also have the potential to capture anomalous data that doesn?t represent larger trends in dog park visits or users. Expanding the interview pool by extending the study?s time or distributing a survey among dog park visitors could improve the results. Another limitation is it narrow focus, geographically and temporally. Our observations, conversations, and interviews were focused at a single dog park and, although some findings were corroborated by other groups, the transferability of our findings is limited. This is especially true for transportation issues, which typically would require a longer term and larger scale study than this project allowed. While we observed many dog park visitors driving to Waggertail, further observations are needed to confirm whether Waggertail transportation access aligns with the car-heavy dog park access that MacKenzie et al. (2020), Kent et al. (2017), Lee et al. (2009), and McCormack (2011) noted in their research, and whether dog park access generally reflects the trends we observed at Waggertail. Future work could also investigate demographic trends within dog park visitors? travel preferences and usage. Another area of future study, through expanded literature review and additional research questions, could explore the relationships between housing, transportation, and dog parks. Given the county?s current prohibition of dogs on public transit, an additional avenue of future research could review local laws regarding animals on public transportation and the implications for equitable dog park access. 47 Conclusions and Recommendations Using our observations, conversations, and interviews, we generated the following recommendations for consideration in dog park design: ? Ample Parking: Most dog park users drive, so ample parking is needed. If street parking is required, designated dog park visitor parking areas appear to provide sufficient space while not interfering with the needs of adjacent residents. ? Trees and Other Forms of Shade: Many users mentioned this need. Our interviewee mentioned that having a covered and/or climate-controlled dog park would be a huge plus for him when considering a community. ? Water Management: Avoid the drainage issues observed at Waggertail through site selection and surface material choices. ? Usable Drinking Water Sources: Design faucets and spigots for water fountains that make it easy to fill a dog bowl. ? Lights: Installing lights can extend dog park hours and seasonal use. ? Large Size: Several users noted that they visited Waggertail for its size, despite having access to smaller dog parks nearby. ? Registration Model: Registration gives peace of mind to dog park users, without seeming to create undue burden. ? Fence Design: Create wide fence sections that allow large machines into park for maintenance. ? Adjacency to Other Park Amenities: A dog park?s location within a larger park and adjacency to other amenities can bring the community together. At Waggertail, we observed (and heard about) community building around DeMatha High School, who play on nearby baseball fields 48 Cabin John Dog Park Address 7400 Tuckerman Lane, Rockville, MD Size 50,000 square feet (1.15 acres) Surface material Wood mulch Seperate small & large dog areas Yes Large dog park: 40,000 square feet Small dog park: 10,000 square feet Other amenities Rock climbing structure, benches, plaza area, pavilion, waterspout Type Suburban III Park Operator Montgomery Parks Description The Cabin John Dog Park is on the eastern side of Cabin John Regional Park next to the playground and event facility center. It is a Suburban III park. There is a large parking lot to the south of the dog park on the other side of Cabin John and another parking lot a few feet next to the dog park. The dog park is surrounded by trees and is sited away from roads, so there is not much noise pollution apart from a train whistle. A train track encompasses the perimeter of the dog park and is used for children?s train rides in the summer. Once inside the Cabin John Park, the dog park can be reached by wheelchair or wooden steps. The dog park is on a slight incline to the left of the event center, which features a pig-shaped trash can and a hippo-shaped water fountain. A bridge over the train track leads into the dog park vestibule. The vestibule is gated with a silver chain link fence and contains the entrances to the large and small dog areas. Once inside, there is a bulletin board on the left and a dumpster for waste disposal. The large dog area to the left is 40,000 square feet and the 10,000 square foot small dog area is on the right. The dog park is free. There is always a variety of users any day of the week, including owners, professional dog walkers, and people deciding if they want to get a dog. Families tend to visit on weekends. History The Cabin John Regional Park was established in 1966 under the leadership of Frank Rubini. The 50,000 square foot dog park opened on September 23, 2009 and was the fourth dog park in Montgomery County. 49 Findings We found that the fresh mulch was put in a month and a half prior to our visit, which explains why some reviews mentioned mud and others did not. Our observations made us realize that social interactions are limited to the times people visit the park and how people approach each other. Two reasons people bring their dog to the park are to socialize their dogs or to socialize with dog owners. Through interactions with other dog owners, owners can receive health advice, food recommendations and learn from other?s experiences. Some owners go to the park for their dogs and to enjoy nature. Cabin John is a wooded park so you can sit under the trees and enjoy the shade with your dog. Some owners conduct business from the park on their phones. Cabin John can be a good place for families with dogs to picnic. They can leave their dogs in the dog park knowing they will be happy and safe while the family enjoys the rest of park. One interviewee, Allan, remarked that he loved that dogs don?t care about size or gender and just want to get to know the other dogs and have a good time (see Figure X). He said that he wished people were like that as well. We wondered if there were any negative experiences regarding race or inequality at the dog park but found the only negative experiences revolved around people not being responsible for their dog?s actions. Everyone was friendly and just wanted time for their dogs to roam free and time to catch up with other community members using the park. Limitations The research was limited by time. This project only covers one semester. To fully study the behaviors of park goers would require observing multiple seasons and speaking with long-time residents and new arrivals. Only one of researcher has a dog, which limited the group?s ability to make social connections via dog interaction. Another limitation was the availability of data on the Cabin John Dog Park. Considering the park?s long history, this information should be collected from the public, planners, and a literature review. The answers to some questions, like how many people visited the dog park when it first opened, were never recorded and can?t be answered. Other questions can be answered through interviews and observations of the dog park. 50 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our observations and interviews, we concluded that Cabin John is a successful dog park. It is large, free, has many amenities, and ample parking. The users we interviewed enjoy the park and appreciate the collective responsibility of dog owners; they trust that their dogs are in a safe environment. They are also invested in the park. One frequent dog park user, Eden, who works as a dog-walker, installed buckets along the perimeter of the large dog area to collect old tennis balls. Eden also fixed the broken front gate that leads to the dog park areas. One interviewee usually brings the dog waste bags to the large dog area to share with others. When considering the dog park design, we collaborated with interviewees to create the following recommendations: ? More mulch needs to be placed throughout the season as the mulch keeps the soils warm, the surface mud-free, and helps prevent waste odor. ? Provide a place to wash dogs. ? Reduce standing puddles. ? Provide trash cans inside each dog area. ? Place signage for restrooms for the park users. ? Place signage near the entrance that there is a dog park. 51 PROPOSED SITES: CHEVERLY, MD On Saturday, April 23rd, from 1-3pm, the class visited three parks in the Town of Cheverly: Boyd Park, Town Park, and the Euclid Street Neighborhood Park. Town residents of have been requesting a dog park for some time. Due to time constraints, the class couldn?t visit all available parkland or open space in Cheverly. Cheverly Nature Park wasn?t included, as well as smaller parcels of land in the neighborhood. Future research should include these areas. Despite that limitation, all three areas hold promise as potential dog park sites, as discussed below. In general, the class believes Town Park is the most suitable for a dog park. If funds are available for a larger park redesign, then Cheverly Euclid Street Neighborhood Park could also work. Boyd Park Boyd Park is more than six acres off Columbia Park Road, just south of Route 50. It has parking, a playground, basketball court with bleachers, restrooms, a tennis court, community garden, bio- retention ponds, a multi-purpose field and an overgrown baseball or softball field. Except for the ball field, the amenities appear to be well used and maintained. On our visit, people were barbequing, using the playground and basketball court (see Figure X). The tennis court was being used, but as a dog park (see Figure X). This suggests a need for a dog park in the area. We were unable to confirm the ownership of the park; signage suggested it may be owned and operated by the Town of Cheverly, not Prince George?s County Parks, which could complicate the county Parks Department?s ability to site a dog park here. Most researchers felt the overgrown ball field would be a fine site for a dog park. Concerns expressed included adjacency to single-family homes across the street, and any future intentions to revitalize the ball field. The other side of the park abuts industrial uses and there may be space for a dog park along that edge. As the findings suggest, placement near such land uses can quell opposition and function well. Another concern is the limited parking; even with the park appearing minimally used, the parking lot was near capacity. Granted, the researchers took up many of the spots, and available street parking was not considered. Boyd Park is the closest park to the Cheverly Metro Station. Currently the station is surrounded by extensive surface parking typical of many WMATA park-and-ride designs. If the county decides to redevelop this land into Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Boyd Park has the potential to serve as a nearby large green space. New TOD development should include small dog parks on site, but a larger space within walking distance, such as Boyd Park, could complement any future development. Assets: ? A flat, grassy baseball field appears overgrown and unused ? Tennis court is currently used as an informal dog park. ? Ample space for a dog park, including adjacent to industrial uses Concerns: ? Potential muddiness and drainage ? May create a conflict of uses ? Ownership ? Parking 52 Town Park Town Park is more than 12 acres that appears to be run by the Town of Cheverly, adjacent to the Cheverly Community Center, Police Department, and Public Works Building. It has many amenities, including well-maintained athletic fields, basketball courts, playground, gazebo, open fields and wooded areas, and a trailhead to the Woodworth Trail (see Figure X). It also has ample parking. Additionally, there was a seemingly new yet abandoned paved area with a large, covered structure with broken caution tape hung from its posts (see Figure X). This area, or the lightly wooded sloped area next to it, both appeare to be fine places for a dog park. Using slopes in dog parks has proved successful at Montgomery County?s Ellsworth Park; a similar success could be achieved here. Assets: ? Unused paved area in disrepair ? Lightly wooded sloped area could provide shade and appears under-programmed ? Ample parking at the Community Center and athletic fields Concerns: ? The slope might require some special consideration ? The Town of Cheverly appears to own the park ? Single-family detached homes face the park but are buffered by an interior road between thes houses and the site. Euclid Street Neighborhood Park The Euclid Street Neighborhood Park is over 16-acres, and approximately three-fourths of the site appears thickly wooded. One side of the park abuts industrial or commercial uses. Four acres of programmed space includes a playground, soccer field and ball field. There is a basketball court slightly downhill from the fields. While by no means crowded, researchers observed residents using each of the spaces. Importantly, this park was clearly marked as owned and maintained by M-NCPPC. Should Prince George?s County Parks want to move quickly on a new dog park in Cheverly, the ample space at this location may prove an advantage. The well-used and maintained athletic fields aren?t a good site for a dog park. This area also faces single-family detached housing. However, if the county is interested in redesigning the whole park, the space occupied by the basketball court appear a good dog park site. It has ample room to expand into the woods, providing desired shade during the summer. The Cabin John Dog Park successfully integrates trees into its design, and lack of shade was a common complaint. As the basketball court appears used and valued, this is recommended only if there was funding to relocate the basketball court onto the field or another location in the larger park. Given the apparent 12 acres of wooded land, there may be other sections that could be partially cleared for a well-shaded dog park. Positives: ? A basketball court downhill from the soccer field could accommodate a dog park that could extend into the forest ? Operated by M-NCPPC Concerns: ? The basketball court would need to be moved up hill; could be part of a larger park redesign ? No apparent water connections 53 CONCLUSIONS It may have seemed a difficult task to learn both qualitative methods and observe dog parks in the Washington metropolitan regional in one semester. Nevertheless, this report has uncovered many valuable lessons, and perhaps more importantly, valuable questions, for Prince George?s County to ask of its future dog parks. Involving the community throughout the process will likely lead to better outcomes?a useful finding for planners. While everyone may say they want larger dog parks, perceptions of size do not always match reality, as interviews at Eckington Dog Park suggest, and this may have to do with design and placement within larger parks. Dog Parks may be a symptom of gentrification. But they are certainly not the cause. With care and intention, dog parks can foster communities across differences through a common furry interest. And it?s hard to choose surface material that is satisfactory to all users. Dust versus odor; mud versus plastic; pervious versus impervious. As in politics, there are many preferences and discussion of lesser evils. We?ve found that there is no Platonic ideal of a dog park?we need varied shapes and sizes, in all kinds of locations, with varying amenities. Perhaps we can say all dog parks deserve shade during the area?s brutal humid summers. Yet we found successful parks with a paucity of shade; though an abundance of complaints about it. We can say that dog parks are here to stay, and we believe that is a good thing. In this virtual age, dog parks bring neighbors and residents physically together, with an excuse to talk to each other. They get people and dogs walking, moving, and enjoying time outside. Dog parks provide needed spaces for dog walkers, for meet-ups, for parents to simultaneously let the dog run and let the kids burn energy at the playground. As we densify and live with smaller yards or in apartment buildings? essential to addressing both climate change and the housing crisis?dog parks can provide an essential service: for dogs, people, and the environment. It is right to think of dog parks as both environmental and social infrastructure, when designed and planned well. We hope that this report will assist Prince George?s County in that pursuit. 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Laurel. ?Dog Parks: Benefits and Liabilities.? Masters Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2007. https://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/18. American Pet Products Association. ?Pet Industry Market Size, Trends & Ownership Statistics.? American Pet Products Association, March 24, 2021. https://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_ industrytrends.asp. Anspach, Beth. ?Personal Journey: Local Woman Creates Smart Dog Parks.? Dayton, Dayton Daily News, 6 Mar. 2022, https://www.daytondailynews.com/lifestyles/personal-journey-local-woman- creates-smart-dog-parks/6WMJIU4KHBGD5E6SW7INZAWOIQ/#:~:text=Beth%20Miller%20of%20 Centerville%20is,before%20creating%20her%20professional%20program. ARC Associates and Addison, Illinois. ?Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan.? Addison, Il: Addison Park District, 2020. Bliss, Laura. ?The Politics of the Dog Park.? City Lab, August 11, 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/ news/articles/2017-08-11/the-politics-of-dog-parks-and-gentrification. Booth, Annie L. ?Dog Eat Dog World: Public Consultation and Planning on Contested Landscapes, a Case Study of Dog Parks and Municipal Government.? Community Development Journal 52, no. 2 (May 23, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsw010. Brown, Lauren M. ?Landscape Barkitecture : Guidelines for Behaviorally, Mentally and Physically Responsive Dog Parks.? Masters Thesis, Ball State University, 2012. https://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/ handle/123456789/195965. Burgess-Cady, Lacy Jo. ?Dog Parks and Their Users: A Study of Four Dog Parks in the Greater Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area.? Dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 2016. https://shareok. org/handle/11244/34701. National Park Service. ?Carbon Storage by Urban Forests (U.S. National Park Service),? 2022. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/uerla-trees-carbon-storage.htm. Carlisle, Gretchen K. ?The Social Skills and Attachment to Dogs of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 45, no. 5 (October 12, 2014): 1137?45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2267-7. Cerw?n, Gunnar. ?Sound in Landscape Architecture. A Soundscape Approach to Noise.? Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/320556693_Sound_in_Landscape_Architecture_A_Soundscape_Approach_to_Noise. Chang, Zheng, Jiayu Chen, Weifeng Li, and Xin Li. ?Public Transportation and the Spatial Inequality of Urban Park Accessibility: New Evidence from Hong Kong.? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 76 (November 2019): 111?22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.09.012. Cohen, Deborah A., Thomas L. McKenzie, Amber Sehgal, Stephanie Williamson, Daniela Golinelli, and Nicole Lurie. ?Contribution of Public Parks to Physical Activity.? American Journal of Public Health 97, no. 3 (March 2007): 509?14. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2005.072447. 55 Cranz, Galen, and Michael Boland. ?Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks.? Landscape Journal 23, no. 2 (January 1, 2004): 102?20. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.23.2.102. Cutt, Hayley, Billie Giles-Corti, Matthew Knuiman, Anna Timperio, and Fiona Bull. ?Understanding Dog Owners? Increased Levels of Physical Activity: Results From RESIDE.? American Journal of Public Health 98, no. 1 (January 2008): 66?69. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2006.103499. De Frenne, Pieter, Mathias Cougnon, Geert P.J. Janssens, and Pieter Vangansbeke. ?Nutrient Fertilization by Dogs in Peri-Urban Ecosystems.? Ecological Solutions and Evidence, February 6, 2022. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12128. Department of Parks and Recreation. ?Dog Park Design Standards.? DPR. Washington, DC Department of Parks and Recreation, May 19, 2010. https://dpr.dc.gov/publication/dog-park-design- standards. Edmondson, J., I. Stott, Z. G. Davies, K. J. Gaston, and J. R. Leake. ?Soil Surface Temperatures Reveal Moderation of the Urban Heat Island Effect by Trees and Shrubs.? Nature: Scientific Reports, September 19, 2016. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33708. Emily, Mitchell. ?Bark: Dog Park + Bar Restaurant.? Thesis, Texas Christian University, 2016. https://repository.tcu.edu/bitstream/handle/116099117/11412/Mitchell__Emily-Honors_Project. pdf?sequence=1. Environmental Protection Agency. ?Heat Islands.? Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. https:// www.epa.gov/heatislands. ???. ?Urbanization and Storm Water Runoff.? Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. https:// www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/urbanization-and-storm-water-runoff#:~:text=Stormwater%20 runoff%20is%20generated%20from. Evenson, Kelly R., Elizabeth Shay, Stephanie Williamson, and Deborah A. Cohen. ?Use of Dog Parks and the Contribution to Physical Activity for Their Owners.? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 87, no. 2 (March 2016): 165?73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1143909. Evenson, Kelly R, Elizabeth Shay, Stephanie Williamson, and Deborah A Cohen. ?Use of Dog Parks and the Contribution to Physical Activity for Their Owners.? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 87, no. 2 (June 2016): 165?73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1143909. Freeman, Lance. ?Gentrification and Well-Being.? In International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home, edited by Susan Smith, 280?86. New York: Focal Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978- 0-08-047163-1.00006-0. ???. There Goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Temple University Press, 2011. Garland, Hyojung, and Susanne Paul. ?Memorandum.? Montgomery County, MD: Montgomery County Planning Board, June 6, 2019. https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019/05/MCPB-Dog-Park-Suitability-Study-Planning-Board-Memo-6.6.2019.pdf. Giles-Corti, Billie, Melissa H. Broomhall, Matthew Knuiman, Catherine Collins, Kate Douglas, Kevin Ng, Andrea Lange, and Robert J. Donovan. ?Increasing Walking.? American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28, no. 2 (February 2005): 169?76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018. G?mez, Edwin. ?Dog Parks: Benefits, Conflicts, and Suggestions.? Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 31, no. 4 (2013): 79. Gomez, Edwin, and Ron Malega. ?Dog Park Use: Perceived Benefits, Park Proximity, and Individual and Neighborhood Effects.? Taylor & Francis, 15 Nov. 2019, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. 1080/00222216.2019.1680263. G?mez, Edwin, Joshua W. R. Baur, and Ron Malega. ?Dog Park Users: An Examination of Perceived Social Capital and Perceived Neighborhood Social Cohesion.? Journal of Urban Affairs 40, no. 3 (August 16, 2017): 349?69. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1343634. ?Google Reviews? (n.d.). [Review of Waggertail Dog Park]. Retrieved https://tinyurl.com/2knj3986 Graham, Taryn M., and Troy D. Glover. ?On the Fence: Dog Parks in the (Un)Leashing of Community and Social Capital.? Leisure Sciences 36, no. 3 (May 14, 2014): 217?34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0149 0400.2014.888020. Greenberg, Alissa. ?How Dog Parks Took Over the Urban Landscape.? Smithsonian Magazine, January 7, 2020. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-dog-parks-took-over-urban- landscape-180973902/. Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry. ?Faux Diversity and Consumption in Gentrifying Neighborhoods.? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 37, no. 1 (2018): 23?38. https://doi. org/10.2307/26802104. Gu?guen, Nicolas, and Serge Ciccotti. ?Domestic Dogs as Facilitators in Social Interaction: An Evaluation of Helping and Courtship Behaviors.? Anthrozo?s 21, no. 4 (December 2008): 339?49. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303708x371564. Gulati, Nidhi. ?The Social Life of Steeplechase Park: Neighborhood Dog-Park as a ?Third Place.? Masters Thesis, Texas A&M University, 2012. https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/148293. Helmer, Jodi. ?Dog Park Safety: What to Know before You Go.? WebMD, WebMD, 17 Dec. 2015, https://pets.webmd.com/dogs/features/dog-park-safety#:~:text=Your%20dog%20can%20 encounter%20viruses,the%20park%2C%22%20Nelson%20says. Hennings, L. ?The Impacts of Dogs on Wildlife and Water Quality: A Literature Review,? 2016. https:// metropaint.org/sites/default/files/2017/09/28/impacts-of-dogs-on-wildlife-water-quality-science- review.pdf. ?Historic Aerials: Viewer.? n.d. Accessed March 7, 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Holderness-Roddam, Robert. ?Design, Planning and Management of Off-Leash Dog Parks,? November 2017. https://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/322156/Off-leash-Dog- Park-Design-Design-Planning-and-Management-Handbook-24-October-2018.pdf. Hyra, Derek. ?Neighbourhood Redevelopment and Processes of Political and Cultural Displacement.? Urban Studies 52, no. 10 (2015): 1753?73. https://doi.org/10.2307/26146094. ???. ?Why Dog Parks Are Such a Hot-Button Issue in the ?Cappuccino City.?? Greater Greater Washington (blog), May 24, 2017. https://ggwash.org/view/63442/why-dog-parks-are-such-a-hot- button-issue-race-class-politics-cappuccino-city-derek-hyra. Jackson, Patrick. ?Situated Activities in a Dog Park: Identity and Conflict in Human-Animal Space.? Society & Animals 20, no. 3 (2012): 254?72. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341237. Jimenez, Edgar H. ?The Role of Amenities in Measuring Park Accessibility: A Case Study of Downey, California.? Masters Thesis, University of Southern California, 2016. https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/ asset-management/2A3BF16HM0VZ. Jones, Sarah. ?Even Our Dog Parks Show America Is an Unequal Playing Field.? New York Magazine: Intelligencer, March 1, 2019. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/dog-park- inequality.html. Kent, Jennifer L., and Corinne Mulley. ?Riding with Dogs in Cars: What Can It Teach Us about Transport Practices and Policy?? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 106 (December 2017): 278?87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.014. Lail, Parabhdeep, Gavin R McCormack, and Melanie Rock. ?Does Dog-Ownership Influence Seasonal Patterns of Neighbourhood-Based Walking among Adults? A Longitudinal Study.? BMC Public Health 11, no. 1 (March 4, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-148. Lee, Hyung-Sook, Mardelle Shepley, and Chang-Shan Huang. ?Evaluation of Off-Leash Dog Parks in Texas and Florida: A Study of Use Patterns, User Satisfaction, and Perception.? Landscape and Urban Planning 92, no. 3?4 (September 2009): 314?24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2009.05.015. ???. ?Evaluation of Off-Leash Dog Parks in Texas and Florida: A Study of Use Patterns, User Satisfaction, and Perception.? Landscape and Urban Planning 92, no. 3?4 (September 2009): 314? 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.015. Levitt, Zo?. ?Gentrification Is Making Us Sick:Envisioning Healthy Development without Displacement.? Reimagine! Race, Poverty & the Environment 20, no. 1 (2015): 87?93. MacKenzie, Don, and Hyun Cho. ?Travel Demand and Emissions from Driving Dogs to Dog Parks.? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2674, no. 6 (May 31, 2020): 291?96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120918870. McCormack, Gavin R., Taryn M. Graham, Kenda Swanson, Alessandro Massolo, and Melanie J. Rock. ?Changes in Visitor Profiles and Activity Patterns Following Dog Supportive Modifications to Parks: A Natural Experiment on the Health Impact of an Urban Policy.? SSM - Population Health 2 (December 2016): 237?43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.03.002. McNicholas, June, and Glyn M. Collis. ?Dogs as Catalysts for Social Interactions: Robustness of the Effect.? British Journal of Psychology 91, no. 1 (February 2000): 61?70. https://doi. org/10.1348/000712600161673. M-NCPPC Montgomery Parks. ?Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.? Montgomery County, MD: M-NCPPC Montgomery Parks, October 2017. https://montgomeryparks.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/06/508-2017.PROS-COMPLETE.pdf. Montgomery County Planning Board. ?Bethesda Downtown Plan Design Guidelines - Working Draft; 2.2 Parks and Open Space.? Montgomery County, MD: Montgomery County Planning Board, July 2017. http://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Attachment-B_2.2-Parks- and-Open-Space_Working-Draft.pdf. National Recreation and Park Association. ?Providing a Place for Pooch to Play.? National Recreation and Park Association, 2018. https://www.nrpa.org/publications-research/park-pulse/park-pulse- survey-providing-a-place-for-pooch-to-play/. Nemiroff, Leah, and Judith Patterson. ?Design, Testing and Implementation of a Large-Scale Urban Dog Waste Composting Program.? Compost Science & Utilization 15, no. 4 (2007): 237?42. https:// doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2007.10702339. Newby, Jonica. The Pact for Survival: Humans and Their Animal Companions. ABC Enterprises, 1997. Noonan, Douglas S., Daniel C. Matisoff, and Nathanael Z. Hoelzel. ?Characteristics of Voluntary Behavior in the Neighborhood Commons.? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45, no. 4_suppl (July 9, 2016): 78S-96S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764016651728. Nowak, David J., and Gordon M. Heisler. ?Air Quality Effects of Urban Trees and Parks.? Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 2010. https://www.nrpa.org/globalassets/research/ nowak-heisler-research-paper.pdf. Park Advisory Commission Dog Park Subcommittee. ?Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance.? City of Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Parks & Recreation, 2013. https://www.a2gov.org/departments/Parks-Recreation/play/Documents/ Recommendations%20and%20Guidelines%20for%20Dog%20Park%20Site%20Selection%20 updated%204-10-15.pdf. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. ?Top 10 Stormwater Best Management Practices for Parks.? Pennsylvania: Department of Environmental Protection, 2006. https://elibrary. dcnr.pa.gov/ ?PGAtlas.Com.? n.d. Accessed March 7, 2022. https://www.pgatlas.com/. Prince George?s County Department of Parks and Recreation (PGDPR). ?Dog Parks in Prince George?s County.? Powerpoint Presentation, January 31, 2022. Prince George?s County. (n.d.). Route 14 | Prince George?s County, MD. Retrieved April 12, 2022, from https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/3434/Route-14 Prohibited Conduct. Subtitle 20A Prince George?s County Code of Ordinances ? 20A- 102 (1986). https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george?s_county/codes/code_of_ ordinances?nodeId=PTIITI17PULOLAPRGECOMA_SUBTITLE_20ATR_DIV1MATR_S20A-102PRCO Rahim, Tissa, Pablo Romero Barrios, Geoffrey McKee, Melissa McLaws, and Tom Kosatsky. ?Public Health Considerations Associated with the Location and Operation of Off-Leash Dog Parks.? Journal of Community Health 43, no. 2 (April 2018): 433?40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0428-2. Renne, John Luciano, and Peter Bennett. ?Giving Parks Back to People: A Transportation Study of New Orleans City Park with Implications for Improving Public Health.? Local Environment 15, no. 9?10 (November 2010): 879?90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2010.531697. Rossbach, Kelly Ann, and John P. Wilson. ?Does a Dog?s Presence Make a Person Appear More Likable?: Two Studies.? Anthrozo?s 5, no. 1 (March 1992): 40?51. https://doi. org/10.2752/089279392787011593. Samuels, Sirrika, Michelle Koo, Dale Levitt, and Julie Fagan. ?Dog Park Health: Promoting Health and Fitness Through Social Communities in Dog Parks.? NJ: Rutgers University, 2011. https://rucore. libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/38914/PDF/1/play/. Schlereth, Nicholas. ?An Examination of Dog Parks and Recommendations for Development in the Community.? Journal of Facility Planning, Design, and Management 4, no. 1 (2016). https://doi. org/10.18666/jfpdm-2016-v4-i1-7218. Schwartzman, Paul. ?Why Some Say D.C.?s Poorest Ward Needs a Dog Park: ?Black People Have Dogs, Too.?? The Washington Post, July 1, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/ dog-park-dc-ward-8/2021/07/01/303520c2-d99b-11eb-9bbb-37c30dcf9363_story.html. Shishegar, Nastaran. ?The Impacts of Green Areas on Mitigating Urban Heat Island Effect.? The International Journal of Environmental Sustainability 9, no. 1 (2014): 119?30. https://doi. org/10.18848/2325-1077/cgp/v09i01/55081. Tileva, Antoaneta (Toni). ?Department of Parks and Gentrification: A Tale of Dogs and Men at the Shaw Dog Park.? Antoaneta (Toni) Tileva - Academia.Edu (blog), January 1, 2015. https://www. academia.edu/19651302/Department_of_Parks_and_Gentrification_A_Tale_of_Dogs_and_Men_at_ the_Shaw_Dog_Park. Tissot, Sylvie. ?Of Dogs and Men: The Making of Spatial Boundaries in a Gentrifying Neighborhood.? City & Community 10, no. 3 (September 2011): 265?84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 6040.2011.01377.x. Turowski, Erin E. ?The Dirty Details of Dog Parks: Parasites, Pathogens, and Prevention.? MSPCA, 28 Apr. 2021, https://www.mspca.org/angell_services/the-dirty-details-of-dog-parks-parasites- pathogens-and-prevention/. US Census Bureau (2011). 2010 Total Population: Black [Map]. In SocialExplorer.com. Census 2010 - PL94 Redistricting Data. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/ explore US Census Bureau (2011). 2010 Total Population: White [Map]. In SocialExplorer.com. Census 2010 - PL94 Redistricting Data. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/ explore US Census Bureau (2011). Median Household Income (In 2010 Inflation Adjusted Dollars) [Map]. In SocialExplorer.com. ACS 2010 (5-Year Estimates). Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/explore US Census Bureau (2020). Median Household Income (In 2019 Inflation Adjusted Dollars) [Map]. In SocialExplorer.com. ACS 2019 (5-Year Estimates). Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/explore US Census Bureau (2011). Total Population 2010 [Map]. In SocialExplorer.com. Census 2010 - PL94 Redistricting Data. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/ explore US Census Bureau (2021). Total Population: African American or Black [Map]. In SocialExplorer.com. Census 2020 - PL94 Redistricting Data. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/explore US Census Bureau (2021). Total Population [Map]. In SocialExplorer.com. Census 2020 - PL94 Redistricting Data. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/explore US Census Bureau (2021). Total Population: White [Map]. In SocialExplorer.com. Census 2020 - PL94 Redistricting Data. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/ explore ?U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Maryland.? n.d. Accessed March 7, 2022. https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MD/BZA110219. ?U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Riverdale Park town, Maryland?. 2022. Accessed March 5, 2022. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/riverdaleparktownmaryland/POP715219#POP715219d van Heeckeren, Anna M. ?Paradise or Parasites: Are Dog Parks Safe?? One Health Organization: Veterinary Care for People and Pets In Need, 20 July 2021, https://www.onehealth.org/blog/ paradise-or-parasites-are-dog-parks-safe#:~:text=Report%20aggressive%20dogs%20to%20 the,can%20be%20toxic%20to%20dogs. ?Waggertail Dog Park?. Retrieved 6 March 2022, from https://files4.1.revize.com/riverdalemd/ document_center/Our%20Town/Waggertail%20Dog%20Park/Brochure.pdf Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. The Free Press. Westgrove P.A.C.K. ?From the Desk of the Westgrove P.A.C.K.? Accessed March 7, 2022. http:// www.westgrovepack.org/uploads/3/8/0/5/38059527/westgrovedogpark_commonsense.pdf. European Commission. ?Why Do We Need to Protect Biodiversity? - Environment.? Accessed March 7, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/intro/index_en.htm. Wood, Lisa, Billie Giles-Corti, and Max Bulsara. ?The Pet Connection: Pets as a Conduit for Social Capital?? Social Science & Medicine 61, no. 6 (September 2005): 1159?73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. socscimed.2005.01.017. Zucca, Antonella, Ali M. Sharifi, and Andrea G. Fabbri. ?Application of Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis to Site Selection for a Local Park: A Case Study in the Bergamo Province, Italy.? Journal of Environmental Management 88, no. 4 (September 2008): 752?69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2007.04.026.