This paper analyses how "pet friendly" is applied across hotel classifications worldwide, using a dataset of 2,000+ properties in 56 countries evaluated under the Roch Dog Friendly Standard (RDFS-02). Findings indicate that 49% of assessed hotels score D or F despite marketing themselves as pet friendly. The assessment covers scoring distribution, policy variation across fee structures and weight restrictions, common failure patterns, and the gap between marketing labels and measurable guest experience. The paper concludes with an overview of the certification framework developed in response to these findings.
RDWP-02 · White Paper · March 2026
Nobody Trusts Pet Friendly
White Paper
Analysis of how "pet friendly" is applied across the global hotel industry. Evaluation of 2,000+ hotels across 56 countries under a standardised assessment framework (RDFS-02). 49% of assessed properties score D or F. Examines scoring distribution, policy variation, failure patterns, and the rationale for an independent certification standard.
Published by Roch Dog · RDWP-02 · March 2026
Nobody Trusts Pet Friendly
Abstract
Methodology
The dataset comprises 2,000+ hotels across 56 countries, assessed between 2024 and 2025. Each property was evaluated against RDFS-02 across four categories: pet policy, access provisions, amenities, and overall guest experience. Scores are assigned using a weighted criteria framework of 31 measurable indicators, then converted to letter grades (A+ through F) using fixed thresholds. Properties that fail any of seven binary disqualification criteria are excluded from certification regardless of overall score.
"Pet friendly" is one of the most widely used descriptors in hotel accommodation. It is also one of the least precisely defined. The term has no agreed definition, no shared standard, and does not specify which animals it refers to. In practice, the majority of travellers booking pet friendly hotels are travelling with dogs. Most pet friendly hotels only accept dogs. Only 10% accept cats.
Roch Dog assessed more than 2,000 hotels across 56 countries and found that 49% score D or F against the evaluation framework. All of them describe themselves as pet friendly. The label lacks a consistent definition and is applied to properties with materially different policies and guest experiences.
This paper examines the scope of that variation, the data behind it, the patterns that produce low scores, industry feedback collected during development, and the certification framework (RDFS-02) developed in response.
Citation: Roch Dog Research Team (2026). Nobody Trusts Pet Friendly. RDWP-02. Roch Dog.
Contents
Analysis of the "pet friendly" label. Evaluation of how the term is used across hotel classifications, the absence of a shared definition, and the variation in policies it describes.
Assessment of the dog travel market. Demographic analysis of dog owning travellers, estimated market size ($5.16 billion by 2026), and documented guest expectations for dog friendly accommodation.
Evaluation of commercial performance. Published data on occupancy, revenue, and return rates at properties with verified dog friendly credentials compared to those without.
Analysis of assessment data. Scoring distribution, grade breakdown, and the five most common failure patterns identified across 2,000+ hotels in 56 countries.
Overview of RDFS-02. Structure of the Roch Dog Friendly Standard, certification process, and the role of independent assessment.
Summary of industry feedback. Responses from hotel operators, consultants, investors, and industry associations collected during the development of RDFS-02.
Related documents
RDFS-02 Dog Friendly Standard. The standard referenced throughout this paper.
RDFRG-02 Defined Terms. All 29 terms defined in the standard.
RDCAF-02 Assessment Framework. How certification is assessed and maintained.
Published by Roch Dog
RDWP-02 · March 2026