There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: a case for evidence-based zoo animal management
Abstract
There are gaps in knowledge that hinder our ability within zoos to provide good animal welfare. This does not mean that zoos cannot or do not provide good welfare, only that currently this goal is hindered. Three reasons for these gaps are identified as: (1) there is an emphasis on the identification and monitoring of indicators that represent poor welfare and it is assumed that an absence of poor welfare equates to good welfare. This assumption is overly simplistic and potentially erroneous; (2) our understanding of how housing and husbandry (H&H) affects animals is limited to a small set of variables determined mostly by our anthropogenic sensitivities. Thus, we place more value on captive environmental variables like space and companionship, ignoring other factors that may have a greater impact on welfare, like climate; (3) finally, whether intentional or not, our knowledge and efforts to improve zoo animal welfare are biased to very few taxa. Most attention has been focused on mammals, notably primates, large cats, bears, and elephants, to the exclusion of the other numerous species about which very little is known. Unfortunately, the extent to which these gaps limit our ability to provide zoo animals with good welfare is exacerbated by our over reliance on using myth and tradition to determine zoo animal management. I suggest that we can fill these gaps in our knowledge and improve our ability to provide zoo animals with good welfare through the adoption of an evidence-b…
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?
The minimum standard criteria adopted by husbandry guidelines can produce standardised enclosure designs, hampering further improvement.
“Furthermore, the “minimum standard” criteria adopted by husbandry guidelines can produce standardised enclosure designs, hampering further improvement (Melfi, 2009).”
From Husbandry and enclosure influences on penguin behavior and conservation breeding (2016) · cites this paper as Melfi, 2009
Behavioral deviations may be a product of selection relaxation rather than enclosure design.
“and hence behavioral deviations may be a product of selection relaxation rather than enclosure design (Melfi, 2009).”
From Husbandry and enclosure influences on penguin behavior and conservation breeding (2016) · cites this paper as Melfi, 2009
Previous research has identified a species bias in animal literature, in which mammalian taxa tend to be better represented.
“Previous research (e.g., Melfi, 2009) has identified a species bias in animal literature, in which mammalian taxa tend to be better represented.”
From An Investigation into the Perception and Prevalence of Mixed-Species Exhibits in Zoos and Aquaria (2022) · cites this paper as Melfi, 2009
In a sample of zoological research, 89% was mammal based (60% primate based), 8% was bird based, and 1% on remaining taxa.
“Through assessing a sample of research, they discovered 89% was mammal based (60% primate based), 8% was bird based, and 1% on remaining taxa”
From An Investigation into the Perception and Prevalence of Mixed-Species Exhibits in Zoos and Aquaria (2022) · cites this paper as Melfi, ( 2009)
Melfi (2009) highlighted a significant 'mammal bias' in zoological research, particularly surrounding primates.
“Melfi, ( 2009) discussed patterns within zoological research and highlighted a significant 'mammal bias', particularly surrounding primates due to human relation and what researchers already know”
From An Investigation into the Perception and Prevalence of Mixed-Species Exhibits in Zoos and Aquaria (2022) · cites this paper as Melfi, ( 2009)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 54 · Cited by 244
- Authors
- Melfi, V. A.
- Affiliations
- Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Melfi, V. A.
- ORCID
- Melfi, V. A.
- Venue
- Zoo Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-10-28
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 574-588
- ISSN
- 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2361
- OpenAlex
- W1983765127
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 4.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- zoo animal welfare, evidence-based management, welfare indicators, captive management
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Species Specificity, Evidence-Based Practice
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