Cited by 84Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesPrimate Behavior and EcologyMuseums and Cultural Heritage

The influence of a camouflage net barrier on the behaviour, welfare and public perceptions of zoo-housed gorillas

Open access
Blaney, EC, Wells, DL·2004·Animal Welfare

Abstract

Visitors to zoos can be a potential source of stress to captive-housed primates, resulting in increased abnormal behaviour and intra-group aggression. Finding a way to screen primates from human visitors may be one method of decreasing stress and enhancing animal welfare. For this study, the behaviour of six zoo-housed gorillas was studied for one month during standard housing conditions (control condition) and for a further month following the installation of a camouflage net barrier to the viewing area of the exhibit (barrier condition). Visitors’ (n = 200) perceptions of the animals and the exhibit were also recorded during each condition. The net barrier had a significant effect on some components of the gorillas’ behaviour. The gorillas exhibited significantly lower levels of conspecific-directed aggression and stereotypic behaviours during the barrier than the control condition. The net barrier also had a slight effect on visitors’ perceptions both of the animals and of their exhibit. The gorillas were considered to look more exciting and less aggressive during the barrier than the control condition. The exhibit was also considered to be more appropriate for visitors following the introduction of the camouflage netting. Overall, the addition of a screen such as camouflage netting could be considered a positive change, resulting in a reduction in those behaviours typically induced by large groups of visitors and an improvement in public perceptions of the animals and their environment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0962728600026841

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Visitors can have negative, neutral or positive impacts on zoo animal behaviour and welfare.

    “Decades of research on the visitor effect in zoos has demonstrated that visitors can have negative, neutral or positive impacts on zoo animal behaviour and welfare.”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Introduction says visitors may be a source of stress, and Animal welfare implications links their presence to aggression and stereotypic behaviour in the gorillas. The Introduction also describes visitor stimulation as potentially enriching, but the paper does not establish positive welfare effects or a neutral visitor effect; its finding that the barrier had little effect on most behaviours is not the same claim. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reducing visual contact with visitors by using camouflage netting or one-way vision screens has been found to reduce intragroup aggression and stereotypic behaviours in Western lowland gorilla and Black-capped capuchins.

    “For example, reducing visual contact with visitors by using camouflage netting or one-way vision screens has been found to reduced intragroup aggression and stereotypic behaviours such as repetitive teeth clenching, body rocking, pacing and self-scratching in Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and Black-capped capuchins (Sapajus apella) [22,23,24].”
  • Camouflage netting and one-way vision screens improved gorilla and black-capped capuchin welfare through reduction of visual contact with visitors and likely by reducing potentially threatening visitor behaviours.

    “This is to some extent supported by previous studies that, while not measuring visitor behaviour specifically, found camouflage netting and one-way vision screens improved gorilla and black-capped capuchin welfare through the reduction of visual contact with visitors but also likely by reducing potentially threatening visitor behaviours as a result of the visual barriers being in place [22,23,24].”
  • The literature on the effects of visitor interactions on zoo animals is ambiguous, with studies providing evidence for negative, neutral and positive impacts.

    “However, the literature on the effects of visitor interactions on zoo animals is somewhat ambiguous, with studies providing evidence for a range of impacts interpreted as negative [12,13], neutral [14,15] and positive [16].”
  • Visual barrier treatments resulted in significantly less aggressive behaviour and abnormal behaviour in gorilla and black capped capuchin studies.

    “The visual barrier treatments resulted in significantly less aggressive behavior and abnormal behavior in both the gorilla study [12] and the black capped capuchin study [52].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Maki S, Alford P L and Bramblett C 1987 The effects of unfa- miliar humans on aggression in captive chimpanzee groups. American Journal of Primatology 12: 358 (Abstract)
  2. Martin P and Bateson P 1986 Measuring Behaviour. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blaney, E., & Wells, D.
Affiliations
Queen's University Belfast (GB)
Corresponding author
Wells, DL
Venue
Animal Welfare
Published
2004-05
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
111-118
ISSN
  • 0962-7286 (ISSN-L)
  • 2054-1538
OpenAlex
W2583089723
Cited by
84
References
25
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Animal Welfare (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
  • Queen's University Belfast
  • Queen's University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Museology › Museums and Cultural Heritage
Keywords
gorillas, zoo animals, abnormal behaviour, stereotypy, public perception, zoo exhibits, captive primates

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