Cited by 244Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesConservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationWildlife Ecology and Conservation

There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: a case for evidence-based zoo animal management

Melfi, V. A.·2009·Zoo Biology

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

Crossref · 10.1002/zoo.20288

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 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).”
  • 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).”
  • 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.”
  • 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”
  • 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”

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.
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