Feasibility and validity of the animal welfare assessment grid to monitor the welfare of zoo-housed gorillas Gorilla gorilla gorilla
Open accessAbstract
Zoos need to monitor their animals in order to evaluate to what extent animal welfare policies result in adequate welfare. Since it is usually not feasible for zoos to structurally measure corticosteroid concentrations or conduct extensive behavioural observations, zoos often rely on their caretakers to assess animal welfare using surveys. The Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (AWAG) allows zoos to quantify and visualise animal welfare based on keeper ratings. This tool has previously been used to monitor the welfare of zoo-housed animals, but it has not yet been used in practice by zookeepers. Therefore, the welfare of two groups of western lowland gorillas Gorilla gorilla gorilla was monitored daily for three months by caretakers using the AWAG to assess its usability and reliability. Behavioural observations were conducted simultaneously to validate keeper ratings of animal-based welfare indicators. This study demonstrated that the AWAG can be used to get a good indication of the welfare of an individual or group and to identify potential welfare issues. Welfare appeared to be relatively stable in the long term, which indicates that it is not necessary to perform daily welfare audits. Keepers’ assessments captured more subtle changes in welfare compared to assessments made retrospectively by researchers in previous studies. Inter-rater reliability was good, but caretakers’ scores did not always correspond with data from behavioural observations. Extra training, regular staff meetings and longer observation times will most likely increase the degree of detail of keeper ratings.
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?
Studies have highlighted instances where mahouts, despite their proximity to the animals, could not identify certain behaviors accurately, leading to discrepancies between direct observations and keeper assessments.
“Studies have highlighted instances where mahouts, despite their proximity to the animals, could not identify certain behaviors accurately, leading to discrepancies between direct observations and keeper assessments (92).”
From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [92]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Welfare assessment tools in zoos: from theory to practice
Jones, N., Sherwen, S. L., Robbins, R., McLelland, D. J., & Whittaker, A. L. (2022) · Veterinary Sciences · doi:10.3390/vetsci9040170 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Narshi, T. M., Free, D., Justice, W. S. M., Smith, S. J., & Wolfensohn, S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12131675 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
How do we plan for the zoo exhibit of the future?
Fernandez, E. J., Brereton, J. E., & Coe, J. C. (2023) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2023.106085 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Keeper effect: Animals are more active in the presence of their caretakers
Pacheco, E., Krebs, B. L., & Watters, J. V. (2024) · Zoo Biology · doi:10.1002/zoo.21833 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Assessing the Welfare of Captive Group-Housed Cockroaches, Gromphadorhina oblongonota
Free, D., & Wolfensohn, S. (2023) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani13213351 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Ghimire, R., Brown, J. L., Thitaram, C., & Bansiddhi, P. (2024) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2024.1370909 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Serres, A., Boys, R. M., Beausoleil, N. J., Platto, S., Delfour, F., & Li, S. (2024) · Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · doi:10.1002/aqc.70004 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Development of a welfare assessment tool for tourist camp elephants in Asia
Ghimire, R., Brown, J. L., Thitaram, C., Glaeser, S. S., Lampang, K. N., Kulnanan, P., & Bansiddhi, P. (2024) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.18370 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Free, D., Justice, W. S. M., Smith, S. J., Howard, V., & Wolfensohn, S. (2022) · Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens · doi:10.3390/jzbg3030032 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Simplifying the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid for enhanced accessibility
Kim, J., Choi, J.-H., Ryu, H., & Kang, H. (2024) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2024.1459560 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Facility design and management. Strategies for high level biocontainment
Dennis, M. J., Charlton, M., Elam, S., & Wolfensohn, S. (2024) · Laboratory Animals · doi:10.1177/00236772241247104 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Gandia, K. M., Elliott, J., Girling, S. J., Kessler, S. E., & Buchanan‐Smith, H. M. (2024) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani14152223 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Platto, S., Serres, A., Normando, S., Manteca, X., Temple, D., & Hao, Y. (2025) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.1017/awf.2025.19 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Kim, J. H., Kang, H., Min, M., Ma, S. A., & Cho, J. (2025) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106665
- Authors
- Brouwers
- Venue
- The Journal of zoo and aquarium research
- Published
- 2021-10-31
- ISSN
- 2214-7594 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W6963265072
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 3.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- jzar.org
- Locations
- The Journal of zoo and aquarium research (publishedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
- Keywords
- zoo animal welfare, western lowland gorilla, Gorilla gorilla gorilla, welfare monitoring, inter-rater reliability, behavioral observation, welfare indicators, zookeepers
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