English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Baranyiová E., A. Holub, M. Tyrlík, B. Janáãková, M. Ernstová: The Influence of Urbanization on the Behaviour of Dogs in the Czech Republic. Acta Vet. Brno 74, 2005: 401-409. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of urbanization in the Czech Republic upon the co-existence of domesticated dogs and their owners. We divided the data from a questionnaire (distributed to dog owners) into rural (R, n = 164) and urban (U, n = 132). The former group comprised of dogs living in family houses with yards/gardens, the latter comprised of dogs kept in urban apartments without yards or gardens. The data were evaluated by chi-square test. The differences in living conditions of R and U dogs were derivative of different structures of the respective households. In the R group, 3.7% of dogs lived in one-person households, 42.9% in two-person, and 53.4% in households with more than two persons. By contrast in U households more dogs lived in one-person households (6.9%), 58.8% in two-member, but fewer (34.4%) lived in households with more members. In R households, more frequently other dogs also were living (R = 60.1%, U = 32.1%; χ2 =22.929, df = 1; p < 0.001), and a linear association was found with the larger number of children and cats and other animals in the house. Although the physical and social pressures upon the U group of dogs, based on permanent dwelling in small niches of urban apartments, were very strong (Czech apartments are comfortable, but smaller than in many other European countries), we found significant changes in 23 (27.1%) of 86 behavioural traits analyzed. Among them, however, only 6 (14.6%) from among 41 traits concerned behaviours of dogs (using the furniture, sleeping in beds of family members, mounting people, growling at family members, perceiving the moods of owners, showing fear, and destroying garden less frequently). The remaining 44 traits under study concerned the behaviour of owners/family members. In this category we found 17 significant differences. Their proportion was more than 2.5 times greater (i.e. 38.6%) than that of differences in the behaviour of dogs. We concluded that although the characteristics of co-existence of people and their dogs under study have different biological significance, it is obvious that in the urbanized environment of the Czech society, as this co-existence became more intense, the contacts between people and their dogs became more intimate. Furthermore, household members changed their behaviour (i.e., showed more changes in their conduct) more than their dogs. This transformation of behaviour notwithstanding, with even more rapid urbanization of human society, dogs are still viewed as desirable and suitable companions for humans. No doubt, this is because dogs possess an outstanding social cognition vis-á-vis people and even in an urban environment they are able to adapt and thrive under new conditions of the inter-species co-existence, i.e., contributing to the human-animal bond. Behavioural traits, rural and urban living, questionnaire, human-animal bond