Cited by 134Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaHuman-Animal Interaction Studies

Animal-based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool

Whitham, Jessica C., Wielebnowski, Nadja·2009·Zoo Biology

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

Crossref · 10.1002/zoo.20281

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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.
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