Cited by 16Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesPrimate Behavior and EcologyVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia

Feasibility and validity of the animal welfare assessment grid to monitor the welfare of zoo-housed gorillas Gorilla gorilla gorilla

Open access
Brouwers·2021·˜The œJournal of zoo and aquarium research

Abstract

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

OpenAlex · 10.19227/jzar.v9i4.607

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brouwers
Venue
˜The œJournal 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
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