Cited by 83Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaPrimate Behavior and Ecology

Development of a behavioural welfare assessment tool for routine use with captive elephants

Open access
Yon, Lisa, Williams, Ellen, Harvey, Naomi D., Asher, Lucy·2019·PLoS ONE

Abstract

There has been much concern in recent years about the welfare of elephants in zoos across North America and Europe. While some previous studies have assessed captive elephant welfare at a particular point in time, there has been little work to develop methods which could be used for regular, routine welfare assessment. Such assessment is important in order to track changes in welfare over time. A welfare assessment tool should be rapid, reliable, and simple to complete, without requiring specialist training and facilities; welfare assessments based on behavioural observations are well suited to this purpose. This report describes the development of a new elephant behavioural welfare assessment tool designed for routine use by elephant keepers. Tool development involved: (i) identification of behavioural indicators of welfare from the literature and from focus groups with relevant stakeholders; (ii) development of a prototype tool; (iii) testing of the tool at five UK zoological institutions, involving 29 elephants (representing 46% of the total UK captive elephant population of 63 animals); (iv) assessment of feasibility and reliability of aspects of the prototype tool; (v) assessment of the validity of each element of the tool to reflect the relevant behaviour by comparing detailed behavioural observations with data from the prototype tool; (vi) assessment of known-groups criterion validity by comparing prototype tool scores in individuals with demographics associated with better or worse welfare; (vii) development of a finalised tool which incorporated all elements of the tool which met the criteria set for validity and reliability. Elements of the tool requiring further consideration are discussed, as are considerations for appropriate application and interpretation of scores. This novel behavioural welfare assessment tool can be used by elephant-holding facilities for routine behavioural welfare monitoring, which can inform adjustments to individual welfare plans for each elephant in their collection, to help facilities further assess and improve captive elephant welfare. This study provides an example of how an evidence-based behavioural welfare assessment tool for use by animal caretakers can be developed within the constraints of zoo-based research, which could be applied to a range of captive species.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0210783

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • EBWAT reliability and validity were tested on 63 elephants at five UK elephant-holding facilities and are now used by 11 UK and Irish zoological facilities.

    “The reliability and validity of the tool were tested on 63 elephants at five UK elephant-holding facilities and are now used by 11 UK and Irish zoological facilities (23).”

    From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Methods (Animals and housing; page not provided) say the tool was tested at five UK facilities, but with 29 elephants—not 63. The 63 were the total UK captive elephant population. The passages reviewed do not establish that 11 UK and Irish facilities now use the tool. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Tools are increasingly using behavioral indicators associated with comfort, play, affiliation, foraging, and sociality to evaluate mental and overall welfare states, in addition to commonly used and validated negative welfare indicators like stereotypies, poor health and reproduction, and high mortality and morbidity.

    “Tools are increasingly using behavioral indicators associated with comfort, play, affiliation, foraging, and sociality to evaluate mental and overall welfare states, in addition to commonly used and validated negative welfare indicators like stereotypies, poor health and reproduction, and high mortality and morbidity (23, 44, 101, 102).”

    From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • EBWAT utilizes qualitative assessments of individual daytime and nighttime behavior.

    “Among the few elephant-specific welfare assessment tools is EBWAT, which utilizes qualitative assessments of individual daytime and nighttime behavior (23).”
  • Previously established behavioral measures for captive elephants and welfare factors associated with tourist camps can be integrated and adapted for further testing.

    “Previously established behavioral measures for captive elephants (23, 101, 102) and welfare factors associated with tourist camps can be integrated and adapted for further testing.”
  • There have been several recent advances in developing systematic evidence-based welfare assessment methods for captive elephants.

    “To that end, there have been several recent advances in developing systematic evidence-based welfare assessment methods for captive elephants (Meehan et al., 2019;Williams et al., 2019aWilliams et al., , 2019b;;Yon et al., 2019;Bansiddhi, Brown & Thitaram, 2020;Bansiddhi et al., 2020”

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: 6

  1. [5]Clubb R, Mason G. A Review of the Welfare of Zoo Elephants in Europe: A Report Commissioned by the RSPCA. Horsham, West Sussex, UK: RSPCA; 2002.
  2. [6]Clubb R, Mason G, editors. The welfare of zoo elephants in Europe: mortality, morbidity and reproduction. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium on Zoo Research; 2003; Marwell Zoological Park, Winchester UK. London: Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland; 2003.
  3. [9]Clubb R, Mason GJ. A review of the welfare of zoo elephants in Europe. Horsham, UK; 2002.
  4. [11]Zoos Forum Elephant Working Group. Elephants in UK Zoos: Zoos Forum review of issues in elephant husbandry in UK zoos in light of the Report by Harris et al (2008) Bristol: Wildlife Species Conservation Division, Defra; 2010. Available from: http://www.zoocheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2008-study-of-elephant-welfare-in-UK-zoos.pdf. [Accessed June 2018]
  5. [13]Dawkins MS. What is good welfare and how can we achieve it The future of animal farming: renewing the ancient contract Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK 2008: 73– 82.
  6. [33]Brockett RC, Stoinski TS, Black J, Markowitz T, Maple TL. Nocturnal behavior in a group of unchained female African elephants. Zoo biology. 1999; 18(2): 101– 9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yon, L., Williams, E., Harvey, N. D., & Asher, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Nottingham Trent University (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Yon, Lisa
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2019-02-06
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
e0210783
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2911385253
Cited by
83
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4
FWCI
10.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (WC1081)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
captive elephants, animal welfare assessment, zoo animals
MeSH terms
Behavior Observation Techniques, Animals, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Elephants, Feasibility Studies, Female, United Kingdom, Male, Reproducibility of Results

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