Problematic animals in the zoo: the issue of charismatic megafauna
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?
For elephants, there is a considerable mismatch between the captive and natural environment, one that appears to negatively impact well-being in captivity.
“The present overview indicates that, for elephants, there is a considerable mismatch between the captive and natural environment, one that appears to negatively impact well-being in captivity (Mason, 2010;Hosey, Melfi & Ward, 2020”
From Continuing challenges of elephant captivity: the captive environment, health issues, and welfare implications (2024) · cites this paper as Hosey, Melfi & Ward, 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Hosey, G., Melfi, V., & Ward, S. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Greater Manchester (GB)
- Hartpury University (GB)
- Nottingham Trent University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hosey, Geoff
- Venue
- Problematic Wildlife II
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2020
- Pages
- 485-508
- OpenAlex
- W3023062290
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 15.42
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
- Keywords
- charismatic megafauna, zoo animal welfare, elephants, great apes, cetaceans, Tapirus, gibbons, manatees, animal welfare research, conservation funding, conservation education
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
