Cited by 62Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Welfare assessment tools in zoos: from theory to practice

Open access
Jones, Narelle, Sherwen, Sally L., Robbins, Rachel, McLelland, David J., Whittaker, Alexandra L.·2022·Veterinary Sciences

Abstract

Zoos are increasingly implementing formalized animal welfare assessment programs to allow monitoring of welfare over time, as well as to aid in resource prioritization. These programs tend to rely on assessment tools that incorporate resource-based and observational animal-focused measures. A narrative review of the literature was conducted to bring together recent studies examining welfare assessment methods in zoo animals. A summary of these methods is provided, with advantages and limitations of the approaches presented. We then highlight practical considerations with respect to implementation of these tools into practice, for example scoring schemes, weighting of criteria, and innate animal factors for consideration. It is concluded that there would be value in standardizing guidelines for development of welfare assessment tools since zoo accreditation bodies rarely prescribe these. There is also a need to develop taxon or species-specific assessment tools to complement more generic processes and more directly inform welfare management.

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 · 10.3390/vetsci9040170

Cites

90 of 90 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?

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

1 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, N., Sherwen, S. L., Robbins, R., McLelland, D. J., & Whittaker, A. L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Zoos South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
Corresponding author
  • Jones, Narelle
  • Whittaker, Alexandra L.
Venue
Veterinary Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-04-01
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
170
ISSN
2306-7381 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225727405
Cited by
62
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Veterinary Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
animal welfare assessment, zoo animals, welfare assessment tools, scoring system, resource allocation, welfare monitoring, zoo management

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