The very first design concepts used the following scenarios:
Let us imagine the following, based on a hopefully rare personal experience. A senior walker, who lives on their own, is walking the dog on a rainy day. They slip on the wet road and break an ankle. Fortunately, there are others around who render assistance. But what about the dog? There is no-one home to call and the helpful people who called the ambulance don’t stay around once it arrives. This is where a trusted network of community dog walkers might rally round. As we tend to walk our companion animals at regular times of day and see the same walkers, the chances are they will be nearby and will know the walker and their dog and come to their aid.
A second scenario considers community support and companionship. Many urban parks offer fenced dog park areas that often are busy social locations. However dog parks are not without issues, particularly for the older walker. Apart from often being accessible only by car, many are merely fenced enclosures where there is no guaranteed control, resulting in potential risks to dogs and people. A supportive network of walkers might alleviate this.
Another scenario that would be facilitated by a trusted network is the option to find company and perhaps go on more adventurous walks as a result. Many of us tend to walk the same routes but having a walking companion could lead to exploring further afield. In addition, having a companion walker might lead to a pause in the walk, perhaps stopping for a coffee, or sitting in a pleasant spot to enjoy a view. We often share these new pathways and their opportunities for pauses with other walkers we meet.
Exploring new pathways leads to yet another scenario, one also arising in personal experience. Some sites that are ideal for walking are isolated by virtue of road networks and travel systems. For example there is a wonderful old graveyard at the top of the hill in my own locale but access to it requires crossing an extremely busy fast access road to the highway. There are also convenient river side walks nearby but some stretches of these walks are essentially fast bicycle highways and highly inappropriate for the walker. Both of these access issues could be ameliorated if there were dog friendly public transport periods. The graveyard could be accessed by bus, the quieter parks on the riverside walk could be accessed via river transport. A network of dog walkers could provide the beginnings of a community consultation / mobilisation group.
The design scenarios echo Foth and Guaralda (2017) who point out that ‘people are natural place-makers’ and that place-making community connection, health and well-being are improved through fostering natural place-making. Natural place-making also fosters a more collaborative engagement between people and administrative bodies (consider the residents who know an area well enough to have the confidence to discuss future plans with a local counselor). Critically, ‘natural’ place-making must be allowed to occur rather than being designed and deposited. Place-making is a grass roots activity. It must emerge out of community participation. Data and participatory mapping for community and place-making is not new. Since de Certeau’s insights (1984) into the practices of urban dwellers as they re-make the conceived space of the designed city according to their own living needs and routines, we have tried to use design to construct space and turn it into place.