The research combined extensive direct observation with structured engagement with the people who manage the affected landscapes. Over 40 hours of observation, researchers watched walkers at four popular Surrey countryside sites: Puttenham Common, the Chantries and St Martha’s Hill, Norbury Park and Denbies Wine Estate. These locations span a range of habitats and land uses, from heathland and woodland that support sensitive breeding birds to working farmland and a busy commercial vineyard that attracts high footfall. Alongside the fieldwork, the team held a workshop with 15 participants, including farmers, land managers, countryside business owners and conservation professionals, drawing them into conversation about what they saw on the ground and what might realistically be done about it.

Across the observation periods, researchers recorded 11 occasions when dog fouling was missed entirely by the walker responsible. The spatial distribution of waste proved as significant as its quantity. Dog mess was heavily concentrated within 50 to 100 metres of car parks and along the busiest paths, a pattern that reflects a simple behavioral reality: dogs tend to toilet near the beginning of a walk, before they have settled into the exercise and exploration that follows. Yet infrastructure has rarely been designed around that tendency. Waste bins are conventionally placed at car park entrances, on the assumption that walkers will carry bags to the end of the route or notice and collect throughout. The data suggests that the first few minutes of a walk, when owners are still adjusting leads, greeting other dogs and orienting themselves, are precisely when fouling is most likely to occur and most likely to be missed.

The observational data revealed a consistent link between distraction and environmental lapses. Walkers using phones or wearing headphones sometimes failed to notice their dogs fouling, leaving the marked path, or entering areas of sensitive habitat where ground-nesting birds might be disturbed. The distraction effect was not limited to screens. People walking in social groups could become so absorbed in conversation that their attention to their animals lapsed. Professional dog walkers, who often handle several animals at once, faced a different form of divided attention: with leads in both hands and eyes needed everywhere, the practical demands of managing multiple dogs made continuous monitoring of each animal’s behavior difficult. In each case, the researchers observed, the walker’s intent was not malicious. The gap between caring about the countryside and acting on that care was created in the moment, by the competing demands on human attention.

Off-lead behavior posed another set of risks. The researchers observed dogs entering undergrowth where they could disturb nesting birds, and approaching livestock in adjacent fields. Disturbance of ground-nesting birds is a well-documented conservation concern, since a dog flushing a bird from a nest can expose eggs or chicks to predation and cold, and repeated disturbance can cause birds to abandon breeding sites altogether. Approaches to livestock, meanwhile, can distress or injure animals and, in the worst cases, precipitate dangerous incidents involving cattle and their calves. Yet the same fieldwork painted a far more balanced picture of the dog-walking community than the stereotype of the careless owner. The majority of walkers consistently picked up after their dogs, and some went further, collecting waste left by other people’s animals. The researchers emphasize that this majority behavior is easily overlooked in debates that tend to focus on visible failures.

Dr Tom Roberts, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Sociology at the University of Surrey, argued that the binary framing of dog walkers as either responsible or irresponsible obscures a more complicated reality. “Dog walkers are often portrayed as either responsible or irresponsible, but our research shows that the reality is far more complicated,” he said. “Most people care deeply about their dogs and the countryside. Problems frequently arise because their attention is divided or because facilities do not match how dog walking actually happens.” That distinction matters, because interventions aimed at irresponsible owners—warning signs, blanket restrictions, enforcement—may do little to address the attentional and infrastructural causes of most incidents.

The workshop with farmers and land managers produced a set of practical proposals grounded in this behavioral understanding. Participants suggested placing waste bins where dogs actually toilet, within the first 50 to 100 metres of a route, rather than only at car park entrances. They supported the creation of dedicated off-lead areas, sited away from sensitive habitats, where dogs can run and socialize without putting wildlife or livestock at risk. They also endorsed community-led stewardship, in which regular walkers help to look after sites and informally encourage good practice among peers. Finally, they proposed short, friendly signs placed at junctions and other decision points along paths, rather than long, generic instructions posted at entrances. The logic is behavioral: a brief message at the moment a walker chooses a route or enters a habitat is more likely to influence the choice than a wall of rules encountered before the walk has begun.

The observational data offered some support for a subtler approach to messaging. Seasonal signs that explained why ground-nesting birds are vulnerable—and why disturbance during breeding season matters—attracted noticeably more attention than generic instructions to keep dogs on leads. People respond to reasons, the researchers suggest, more readily than to commands. However, the effect was not permanent: engagement with the seasonal signs appeared to fall as they became familiar to regular visitors, a phenomenon known in behavioral science as message habituation. Rotating messages, refreshing content seasonally, or varying placement may help sustain attention over time, an approach land managers can test at low cost.

Haeyoung Eun, Innovation Lead at the University of Surrey, framed the findings as an argument against rule-heavy management. “Simply giving people more rules is unlikely to solve these problems,” she said. “Land managers need to work with the routines, relationships and practical realities of dog walking. Well-placed bins, timely messages and suitable spaces for off-lead exercise could make responsible choices much easier.” The emphasis on making the responsible choice the easy choice reflects a broader shift in environmental behavior research, away from assumptions about attitude change and toward the design of environments in which sustainable behavior aligns with, rather than competes against, what people are already doing.

The researchers are careful to situate their findings within a wider appreciation of what dog walking contributes to society and individual wellbeing. Dog walking is, for millions of people, a primary source of regular exercise, social interaction and time outdoors, and it creates durable connections between people and the natural landscapes around them. Those same qualities—routine, sociability, engagement with nature—are precisely what can generate unintended environmental pressures, since a walk that draws people into the countryside also brings their animals, their attentional limits and their infrastructure needs with them. The study’s central argument is that recognizing dog walking as a valuable and largely well-intentioned practice, rather than a problem to be policed, opens the door to solutions that fit how walks actually unfold: bins placed where dogs toilet, signs that explain rather than command, spaces set aside for off-lead exercise, and management strategies built around the real routines of walkers and their dogs.