Preprint Review Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Welfare Assessment Tools in Zoos: From Theory to Practice

Version 1 : Received: 2 December 2021 / Approved: 2 December 2021 / Online: 2 December 2021 (10:09:22 CET)
Version 2 : Received: 22 December 2021 / Approved: 22 December 2021 / Online: 22 December 2021 (11:59:32 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Jones, N.; Sherwen, S.L.; Robbins, R.; McLelland, D.J.; Whittaker, A.L. Welfare Assessment Tools in Zoos: From Theory to Practice. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 170. Jones, N.; Sherwen, S.L.; Robbins, R.; McLelland, D.J.; Whittaker, A.L. Welfare Assessment Tools in Zoos: From Theory to Practice. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 170.

Journal reference: Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 170
DOI: 10.3390/vetsci9040170

Abstract

Zoos are increasingly putting in place 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 since it is rarely feasible to obtain measures of physiology in zoo-housed animals. A range of assessment tools are available which commonly have a basis in the Five Domains framework. A comprehensive 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 approach es 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 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 inform welfare management.

Keywords

Zoo animal welfare; Five Domains; Validity; Animal-based; Resource-based; Scoring

Subject

BIOLOGY, Animal Sciences & Zoology

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 22 December 2021
Commenter: Alex Whittaker
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: Some sections have been added- P6, cogntiive bias- p9 and start of P10.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.