(No) Pets on University Campuses: ‘Animaling’ Citizenship for Pet-Friendly Spaces

Rising pet ownership in advanced economies such as the United Kingdom has coincided with growing demand for pet-friendly environments, reflecting the deepening significance of human and companion animal relationships. Universities have increasingly acknowledged the therapeutic potential of domesticated animals for student well-being, yet institutional recognition of pet-friendly policies remains limited and often anthropocentric. This paper explores attitudes towards the potential introduction of pet-friendly policies in a UK campus university, comparing the views of both staff and students. Our analytical framework draws on two key strands of scholarship: animal geographies, which decentre human agency by foregrounding the co-constitutive nature of human–animal relations, and political animal studies, which recognises companion animals as co-citizens entitled to participation and care. From this foundation, we investigate how university community members experience and interpret interactions with pets on campus, how they articulate support or opposition to policy changes and what narratives emerge that may shape institutional decision-making. Using data from an online survey of staff and students (n = 424), we find widespread support for creating a more pet-inclusive campus. However, this support is largely justified through a human-centric rationale, with emphasis placed on the emotional benefits for people. Little recognition is given to the agency of companion animals or their capacity to shape and co-produce university spaces. We argue that any meaningful shift towards pet-friendly campus policies must move beyond utilitarian perspectives and instead engage with more-than-human frameworks that recognise companion animals as active participants in university life. Such an approach invites a broader ethical and spatial rethinking of institutional environments in ways that challenge anthropocentric assumptions and align with emerging geographies of human–animal interactions.