The Dog Off Leash (in) Parks Institution (February 16, 2023)
... what a practice example at Jackie Parker Recreation Area tells us about parks and park users
Vlog Overview
My return to the academy (in 2014) to earn a PhD after 32 years of parks planning and operationalization of recreation and leisure services practice (1982-2014) uncovered many practice realities extensively studied by researchers. This dual lens allows me to share my lived experience as a planner - a unique inside (practice)/outside (research) perspective (and visa-versa) to bridge the two worlds. I will share park development policy and practice decision-making practice using an academic lens (i.e., institutional theory).
Each vlog, called Ice Sculptures, will have a short video presentation followed by some key takeaway notes. I will use lots of “I” and “me” to personalize my experiences, with lots of examples. My personality is such that I like to have fun, be a bit irreverent, hence some of my memes, bad puns and (weak) attempts at humour. My goal is to provide a level of nuance to seen and unseen aspects of decision-making processes. I have opinions or positions that may or may not be popular with my planning brothers and sisters, or elected officials. The vlog provides an informed perspective, but my perspectives and opinions based on my experiences studies. Those who know me may also recognize my perspectives may have evolved during and since my studies. (Yes you can teach an old dog new tricks.) Use my perspectives as you see fit.
Many thanks to YEG Parks and the City of Edmonton for access to photographs. None of what I share represents the opinions or positions of either organization, nor did I try to vet the ideas with them. Pitter patter lets get at ‘er!
Todays Ice Sculpture: The Dog Off Leash (in) Parks Institution
My last vlog on February 13, 2022 focussed on planning guidelines dog off leash areas, for what can be a controversial form of land use in a park. This Ice Sculpture will therefore focus on explaining why dog off leash uses can be controversial using institutional theory. As Paul Harvey would say… “now for the rest of the story.” (Yes I am dating myself…sorry).
Institutionally Speaking
Institutions Defined
Institutions are defined as groups of social actors who coalesce around an interest to take kinetic action to make something happen. Social actors with specific interests coalesce around an issue, not a government structures, to affect an outcome. Coalescing around an issue has and can mean organizing like minded actors, fund raising, coaching, training, funding initiatives, providing technical expertise or services, etc all in support of an outcome of some kind outcome. Institutions borders are porous, comprised of both state and non-state actors, that influence one another. State actors are the typical band of actors - elected officials and administrative staff. Non-state actors include community NGOs, individual community members, development interests, etc. Social actors have different levels of power and agency.
Institutions are resident on both a site and system wide basis (multiple sites). Because they are formed by kinetic energy, state or non-state social actors within institutions can be triggered into action in many positive ways and outcomes, but also in ways that create controversy. Importantly, these institutions exist on sites together. Hence my discussion talks about sub institutions in parks. These institutions are resident outside of parks as well.
There are also parks land uses that have no recognizable group of social actors by the nature of the use (ie., passive spaces). These uses can be displaced due to the lack of an advocacy group. State social actors typically advocate for them.
Institutional Setting in Edmonton
There are multiple and varied institutions of state and non-state actors working together resident on park lands - sports, culture, education, ecological, etc all formed to address health and wellness benefits writ large of Edmontonians. There are multiple NGOs who work with and for the community - Sport Council, Arts Council, Federation of Community Leagues, Folk Music Festival, Heritage Days, Sierra Club, Edmonton Natural History Club, CPAWS, Minor Hockey/Baseball/ Football, the Fringe, River Valley Alliance, North Saskatchewan Conservation Society, MCARFA, individual community leagues, etc. These organizations of volunteer actors work with administration and elected officials in the co-production of public spaces specific to their needs and interests. A number of these organizations have paid staff who organize a substantial work force of community volunteer coaches, trainers, event security, fund raisers, sweat equity contributors, interpreters, ice bookers, drivers, etc.
Inside government organizations, there are paid staff assigned to work with this substantial core of community social actors, and become part of institutions focussed on particular outcomes. In a parks setting those include park planners, landscape architects, cost estimators, construction project managers, ecologists, operations staff, etc.
The Jackie Parker Recreation Area Practice Story
The Jackie Parker Park practice story describes a public space contestation between a childrens’ play amenity (playground, water spray, etc), an unstructured play space (i.e., an open meadow used as a dog off leash area) and an ecological heritage (i.e., Mill Creek Ravine). Community concerns raised about childrens safety resulted in a clash of three institutions. Lets first trace the history of the issue and site that pre-configures the contestation.
The Dog Off Leash Phenomenon
In the late 80s early 90s the parks policy unit in the Parks and Recreation Department. The Parks Bylaw 2202 of the day allowed dogs on leash in parks, but not off leash. As the calendar turned to spring every year, invariably the policy unit would field multiple letters from elected officials and concerns citizens encouraging us to change the Parks Bylaw, while others encouraged us to do the opposite. While reasonable people could disagree on park lands use, we also recognized that community needs change over time. Park land change and associated processes were common.
Based on this growing volume of mail, telephone calls, e-mails and media reports, the Department decided to explore the option more fully in a Pilot Project. Administratively the Parks and Recreation Department assignment made sense because once park lands are identified in area plans, it was the responsibility of the Department staff (e.g. park planners, community recreation coordinators, office of natural areas, project construction staff, operations staff, programmers) to operationalize the park activity (e.g., acquire, construct, program and maintain public spaces) with and for the community. Unlike today in Edmonton, the Department provided a single accountable voice with agency in the planning and service operationalization worlds together with community partners on park lands.
Piloting Dog Off Leash Areas (90s)
Community recreation coordinators approached community leagues to a pilot the use of a portion of the community park lands in their neighborhood for dogs to run freely off leash. Twenty leagues came forward. Once selected for the pilot project, a boundary was defined (absent a fence), parks maintenance contact and community recreation coordinators were identified to help monitor the pilot site, as well as Park Rangers which enforce the municipal park bylaw to address park users who refused to follow park rules around the care and control of their animals. A dog park ambassadors program of community volunteers were formed to support the initiative who periodically touched base/worked with dog owners, operations staff and community recreation coordinators to help educate the feral rule breaking humans on dog owner responsibilities. Annual dog off leash clean up programs were facilitated by these social actors to remove left over dog feces. There were no physical park improvements provided as part of the pilot project (e.g., parking, washrooms, access to water, park furniture) with the exception of signage that identified the site as an off leash site. The dog off leash pilot project areas were created on existing park lands and as such replace an existing use/need.
The Dog Off Leash (in) Parks Institution
The early symptoms or evidence of a nascent institution was the volume of correspondence advocating for the creation of dog off leash areas referenced earlier. Dogs were always allowed on park land with some parts of parks entirely off limits (i.e., playgrounds). If it was going to occur on park lands, like any other organized park activity and use, the community had to have a role in service operationalization. The growing public interest in creating off leash areas and the pilot project effectively coalesced and activated the creation of dog off leash institution in a more formal way that defined roles and responsibilities between state and non-state actors. This institution would have a higher proportion of adults.
The Environmental (in) Parks Institution
The tension between recreation, environmental and economic institutions has always been a contested particularly in the river valley and ravine system. Environmentalists have told me that parks planning and service functions were not sympathetic to preservation of ecological heritages or ecological issues more broadly speaking. While I respectfully disagree, it is fair the City employed zero ecological planners whose role was to advocate or comment on ecological issues until the early 2000s. This was a gap, and city approaches began to evolve in the late 90s. (This will be the subject of a future vlog.) At the time of the creation of the pilot program at Jackie Parker Recreation Area, that institutional voice was not commonly understood, heard or heeded to the extent desired, but clearly was growing in prominence. The protection of Mill Creek Ravine was part of the Jackie Parker Recreation discourse.
The Childrens Play (in) Parks Institution
Throughout its history, the City of Edmonton has relied on community partners to help fund and build childrens play spaces. That reliance was escalated in the 80s when they created cost shared programs to fund and build play structures on neighbourhood parks. Funding was approved by elected officials and administrators worked with community partners implementing the program. That expertise included park planners, landscape architects, community recreation coordinators and project construction managers. Maintenance of these amenities are assumed by city operations staff.
MCARFA is one of, if not the most respected, prominent and sophisticated community NGO in the City on par with, and part of, the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues. MCARFA and other community leagues in Mill Woods came together to create this one of a kind children play amenities based on a site plan approved by the City provided by a landscape architect. This new play space included an amenity building with washrooms, a water play park, a community playground including children climbing walls, a plaza and park furniture, parking and a winter outdoor skating rink. MCARFA worked closely with their administrative partners (i.e., park planning, project construction, operations) and City Council. The community would have been invited to public meetings to discuss the community funded project, were supportive and excited by the project.
The funding of this amenity was shared by Mill Woods Community Leagues, MCARFA and the City. Community Leagues and MCARFA held fund raising drives (i.e., cookie dough sales, sausage sales, book sales), used funds from community league sources such as hall rentals run by community volunteers, made application to City and Provincial cost shared funding programs, etc., provided largely by community volunteers.
Jackie Parker Recreation Site Review (2010)
The trigger for the contestation was the soon to be opened childrens play area. Upon hearing of the potential conflicts in the community through MCARFA, the administration formed an internal working group (i.e., our internal state parks institution actors) composed of of park planning, operations, office of natural areas, park rangers and community recreation coordinators). We had committed to bringing people together to discuss the issue, and how best to address it. But lets begin with some site graphics.
The site review process had multiple steps that engaged both play and dog institutions. Step 1 was to meet with MCARFA who initially heard the community concerns. That meeting was attended by administrative staff, MCARFA executives and a local councillor. The City and MCARFA developed a game plan to address the concerns, that included the steps below.
Step 2 was a community wide meeting hosted by MCARFA. The meeting date and time was advertised by the Mill Wood and area community leagues. It was also advertised on the park site sign. Meeting on the turf (literally) of the community was standard practice when changes to park amenities are discussed. A series of information boards were prepared for the meeting. The intent was to bring all social actors up to speed on the most current information known about the site and issue. City staff were there to answer questions. The meeting generated the volunteers required to move forward of people on all sides of the contestation.
Step 3. We met with the smaller group and developed changes that we would take back to a larger group of the same individuals who attended the first meeting. After discussion between city administrators and volunteers, the collective developed options to vet with the public.
Step 4. A follow up community meeting was held in the same venue. Three hundred people attended, advertised by the community organizations, the park sign, and those attendees who left their email address. The vast majority of the crowd was dog off leash advocates. We had a bank of computers in the middle of one room to loaded with a survey of the meeting and its outcomes. Of the 300 people who attended, 317 of them (not a typo) answered the survey - attendees were passionate! The City shared the outcomes and asked for final feedback.
Cross-Institutional Conversations
The safety of children and some seniors by excited and untethered canines was raised as a concern from both a public health and safety perspective. Some in the community advocated removal/relocation of the dog off leash use, but appeared to be in in the minority, were silent, or likely felt they were being silenced by the much more vocal dog off leash institution. The survey was intended to provide a more discrete option for input. The interface between dogs and Mill Creek Ravine was problematic from an ecological and human health perspective. More broadly speaking animal waste a prominent concern for dog park users and environmental interests. Discussions were animated at times.
I had a conversation with a dog owner who told me he had a “coonhound.” The import of that did statement did not immediately resonate with me. He clarified… they are hunting animals who track animals, and he couldn’t control his dog while on site. I told him pet owners must be in control of their animals at all times. (But this girl, not the same one, is a beautiful animal!)
There was confusion about the boundary of the dog off leash area. Residents who backed on to the park complained about dogs invading their backyards, after they had taken down their developer provided fences. Some felt that public parks should be for people, not dogs.
Process and standards questions arose. We were asked about the process to add or delete sites. The existing process to add sites was available but deletion of sites had not been adequately addressed. There seemed to be strong support for fencing of the dog park off leash area, which was not our standard or practice. There were questions raised about amenities required to support a dog off leash area, and by whom, using what existing or new funding sources (e.g., parking, water, signage, washrooms, lighting).
We were queried throughout about the decision-making process. Members of the dog off leash institution lobbied for a majority rule approach, while some in the childrens’ play institution advocated for the opposite. Ecological interests wanted dogs out of the creek and trees. The area councillor advocated for a fair process. A different elected official in west Edmonton met with me for a coffee to tell me in no uncertain terms to retain the dog off leash use, and seemed to imply we were about to do that - that was news to me. My response was that we had to listen and develop a solutions to address concerns raised. Having said that, I knew removal of the dogs from the site would have been a sh#t show, but still could have been pursued.
City Comms staff were contacting us to respond in real time to bloggers, some of whom were spreading misleading information. Social media experienced this way was a relatively new phenomenon at the time (i.e., instagram was only created in 2010), and our approach was instead to respond to phone calls, media inquiries and letters. I remember at the time thinking… we are not resourced for this.
There were some divergence of opinions internally between the office of natural areas, project managers, community recreation coordinators, park rangers, operations staff and planners due in part to their particular alliances with the sub institutions. This was not a barrier to arriving at an administrative consensus because of our close working relationships in parks service operationalization and the parks institution writ large, all who report to a single Administrator (i.e., Manager of Parks). That administrative arrangement gave each a voice when the issue was brought to the Branch Management Team.
Institutional Contestation Outcomes
In terms of the physical changes to the site, the dog off leash area remains but with a modified boundary. A berm was constructed on the north end to create a visual barrier to discourage animals from staying too far with the help of the parks construction team working on the childrens play area. Ultimately the administrative team made the call to support the changes that were vetted at the final community meeting.
The conflict between the environmental and dog off leash in parks institutions was tabled for the time being subject to further study and analysis. It highlighted the need to develop a special purpose strategy for dogs in parks that ultimately became the Dogs in Open Spaces Strategy (2016) based on the clash of old (i.e., learning through play), new (dog off leash) and growing (i.e., environmental) institutions, all engaged in different ways in the co-production of place on park lands.
While the Dog In Open Spaces Strategy (2016) development did not directly emanate from this practice contestation, it further confirmed the need for one. Due to the magnitude, cost and political nature of the issue, developing a strategy administratively was a bit of a hot potato. It was complicated by continuing rounds of administrative reorganizations post 2010. (Who’s on first 🤔?)
The contestation was politically charged and emotional for some depending on the institutions and inevitably where they competed for the same space. There is penchant administratively internally to make “problems” go away, and/or proactively expedite processes to limit such outbreaks of passion (i.e., surplus schools) when institutions clash. My take is different. These clashes represent a connection to public lands, a connection to health and wellness benefits, not to mention, educational and ecological goods and services provided by public lands. In the Jackie Parker Recreation Area contestation these three institutions of overlapping social actors are active partners in the co-production of public spaces for the benefit of citizens on this site and others. Each sub parks institution should be surfaced, consulted and celebrated.
Servillo, Loris Antonio and Pieter Van den Broeck. “The Social Construction of Planning Systems: A Strategic-Relational Institutionalist Approach.” Planning Practice and Research 27, no. 1 (2012): 41-61. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2012.661179.
Sorensen, André. “Institutions and Urban Space: Land, Infrastructure, and Governance in the Production of Urban Property.” Planning Theory & Practice 19, no. 1 (2018): 21-38. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2017.1408136.
Regarding the competing interests (or “institutions” as Dr. Priebe calls them) for space in public parks/spaces…. recreations, playgrounds, off-leash dog areas, environmental considerations…
I have no quarrel with playgrounds (although I wouldn’t want to see them in the river valley outside of a river valley park) – as a grandmother now I understand their importance. And I understand why there has been this huge increase in dog ownership and hence the desire to have places for dogs to run free. We are an affluent society of small families (which comes first?) and so own pets as ersatz children, which might in one sense be good, as dogs have smaller ecological footprints than humans. Research suggests, not unintuitively, that owning dogs improves human health, although I don’t believe that sick and elderly animals do much to provide relaxation and relieve anxiety!
But, as a member of the “institution” of environmentalists, I do have concerns about the effect of off-leash dogs on the environment. We environmentalists feel that the expansion of mountain biking in the river valley and ravines, with the creation of illegal side trails in their steepest, most densely vegetated escarpments, is the biggest threat to ecological integrity, spoiling habitat, degrading soils, polluting water courses (through erosion), etc., but it appears that the environmental threat posed by off-leash dogs is also rising.
Dr. Priebe writes: “Environmentalists have told me that parks planning and service functions were not sympathetic to preservation of ecological heritages or ecological issues more broadly speaking. While I respectfully disagree….”
Would he like to explain further why he disagrees?
Despite understanding the need, I believe that the City has been far too lenient in creating off-leash dog areas in the river valley and ravines, given that these conflict with natural area and Ribbon of Green policies to maintain the ecological integrity of the river valley. I regularly walk (without a dog) an off-leash trail in Patricia Ravine and frequently witness dogs rushing up and down the wooded slopes, creating mini trails, trampling vegetation and chasing wildlife. (Squirrels may be well able to escape, but I am not so sure about hares. Although I haven’t witnessed it in the river valley I have seen a dog in a provincial natural area kill a nest of leverets within minutes. I know of at least one study that found that birds would not nest within x metres of a trail frequented by dogs.) Why this narrow ravine was chosen as an off-leash area I do not know, but it certainly needs a review for the damage that is being done.
A new proposed policy of converting some neighbourhood green spaces is currently being considered. I would not oppose this provided that it does not encroach on environmental green space or that needed for other forms of recreation (apart from dog-exercising). I’ll particularly support any moves that keep dogs out of the river valley (apart from designated areas within parks in the valley). I’d also suggest that people give serious consideration to dog ownership given that the opportunities for dog exercise in cities are necessarily limited and finite.
Dr. Priebe appears to welcome conflicting “institutions,” at least where these are brought together in organized dialogue, and I have to say that I still count as one of the most meaningful examples of public consultation a working group I worked on with Dr. Priebe and others years agi on natural areas and City natural areas policy.
However, I am, as they say, a “solutions-oriented” person.
I see a continuing huge conflict between development, human recreation, dogs and environmental integrity in Edmonton’s green spaces and river valley, and I see no real motivation on the part of the City to resolve it. I believe the only hope is that the Edmonton River Valley Modernization Plan (Ribbon of Green) be implemented with strict ecological guidelines and priorities. Otherwise, within a short space of time, the river valley and ravines will have deteriorated further from the functional ecological corridor they are supposed to be to an overused and abused piece of linear waste ground devoid of all but the most resilient wildlife.
I look forward to more of Dr. Priebe’s vlogs. Would he be able to enlighten us on the planning for and lack of public consultancy over, Hawrelak Park?