Animal-based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool
Abstract
Zoological institutions are in urgent need of identifying and implementing welfare assessment tools that allow for ongoing, quantitative monitoring of individual animal well-being. Although the American Zoological Association's (AZA) Animal Welfare Committee (AWC) promotes the use of such tools in internal review processes, current approaches to institutional welfare assessment are resource-based and outline the resources, environmental parameters and "best practices" recommended for promoting good welfare in a species in general. We highlight the value of incorporating animal-based monitoring tools that capture the individual animal's perspective and subjective experiences, including positive events and feelings, by validating zookeepers' qualitative assessments. We present evidence that, across a variety of species, caretakers' assessments of traits related to the well-being of individual animals can be both reliable and valid. Furthermore, we demonstrate that among researchers investigating the welfare of farm, laboratory, companion and even zoo animals, support already exists for developing and validating instruments that objectively evaluate the qualitative assessments of caretakers. Finally, we outline a process currently being evaluated at Brookfield Zoo for developing, validating and testing a cost-effective, user-friendly monitoring tool that will help to quantify keepers' qualitative assessments of individual well-being and can be integrated into daily operations. This tool (i.e. species-specific Welfare Score Sheets designed through consultation with animal experts) will result in weekly scores of individual well-being that are expected to provide a first indicator of welfare issues in the collection. Specifically, scores can be reviewed during regular workgroup meetings to identify welfare issues proactively, to assess whether particular conditions, practices or events impact individual well-being, and finally, to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to address welfare issues. Upon completion of the tool validation and testing phases, we plan to make the Welfare Score Sheets for our 12 study species available to other institutions, and the methods we applied may serve as a "blueprint" for creating similar tools for additional species and institutions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Digital tools play a significant role in zoological institutions, enhancing efficacy, data visualization, and multi-institutional collaborations.
“Digital tools play a significant role in zoological institutions, enhancing efficacy, data visualization, and multi-institutional collaborations (81, 100).”
From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [81]
WelfareTrak relies on weekly keeper assessments of individual welfare.
“WelfareTrak, designed by the Chicago Zoological Society, is a user-friendly animal-based monitoring tool that relies on weekly keeper assessments of individual welfare (81).”
From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [81]
These tools mostly rely on keeper ratings as a proxy for quantitative behavior assessments because keepers spend more time with the animals and can detect subtle changes that might be overlooked by others less familiar.
“These tools mostly rely on keeper ratings as a proxy for quantitative behavior assessments because keepers spend more time with the animals and can detect subtle changes that might be overlooked by others less familiar (81).”
From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [81]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 82 · Cited by 134
- Authors
- Whitham, J. C., & Wielebnowski, N.
- Affiliations
- Brookfield Zoo Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Whitham, Jessica C.
- ORCID
- Whitham, Jessica C.
- Venue
- Zoo Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-10-22
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 545-560
- ISSN
- 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2361
- OpenAlex
- W2057949364
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 7.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Sichuan University of Science and Engineering
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
- Keywords
- animal welfare assessment, zoo animals, animal-based welfare indicators, Brookfield Zoo
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Monitoring, Physiologic, Population Surveillance, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Quality of Life, Species Specificity, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review