Cited by 70Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationVeterinary Equine Medical Research

An epidemiological approach to welfare research in zoos: the elephant welfare project

Carlstead, Kathy, Mench, Joy A., Meehan, Cheryl, Brown, Janine L.·2013·Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science

Abstract

Multi-institutional studies of welfare have proven to be valuable in zoos but are hampered by limited sample sizes and difficulty in evaluating more than just a few welfare indicators. To more clearly understand how interactions of husbandry factors influence the interrelationships among welfare outcomes, epidemiological approaches are needed as well as multifactorial assessments of welfare. Many questions have been raised about the housing and care of elephants in zoos and whether their environmental and social needs are being met in a manner that promotes good welfare. This article describes the background and rationale for a large-scale study of elephant welfare in North American zoos funded by the (U.S.) Institute of Museum and Library Services. The goals of this project are to document the prevalence of positive and negative welfare states in 291 elephants exhibited in 72 Association of Zoos and Aquariums zoos and then determine the environmental, management, and husbandry factors that impact elephant welfare. This research is the largest scale nonhuman animal welfare project ever undertaken by the zoo community, and the scope of environmental variables and welfare outcomes measured is unprecedented.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10888705.2013.827915

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • In a large-scale epidemiological study of 291 elephants across 70 North American zoos, the Elephant Welfare Initiative underscored the importance of larger social groups for elephant welfare.

    “In a large-scale epidemiological study of 291 elephants across 70 North American zoos, the Elephant Welfare Initiative underscored the importance of larger social groups for elephant welfare (Carlstead et al., 2013;Greco et al., 2016a;DiVincenti, McDowell & Herrelko, 2023”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carlstead, K., Mench, J. A., Meehan, C., & Brown, J. L.
Affiliations
  • Honolulu Community College (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science
Published
2013-10
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
319-337
ISSN
  • 1088-8705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7604
OpenAlex
W2092621093
Cited by
68
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 2
FWCI
8.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Equine › Veterinary Equine Medical Research
Keywords
elephant welfare, zoo animals, environmental enrichment, welfare indicators, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Institute of Museum and Library Services
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Elephants, Epidemiologic Methods, Housing, Animal, Humans, North America, Research

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