FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Front Vet Sci / Simplifying the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid for enhanced ...
Frontiers in veterinary science2024; 11; 1459560; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1459560

Simplifying the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid for enhanced accessibility.

Abstract: Ensuring animal welfare is essential for both the well-being of zoo animals and the effective management of zoological facilities. This study introduces the Simplified Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (S-AWAG), a streamlined adaptation of the original AWAG framework that integrates the Five Domains Model with an observation-based approach. Designed for non-expert users, S-AWAG focuses on easily observable welfare indicators-such as health and environmental conditions-making it particularly suitable for small, private zoos, including petting zoos, roadside zoos, indoor zoos, and animal cafés. We conducted welfare assessments on 304 animals from 11 species across nine zoos in South Korea. The results revealed significant differences in welfare standards between accredited and non-accredited zoos, with accredited facilities consistently demonstrating better welfare conditions ( < 0.05). The tool exhibited high inter-rater reliability (IRR = 0.839), confirming its consistency across assessors with varying levels of expertise and ensuring reliable and accurate results. Pearson correlation analysis identified strong positive associations between health and environmental factors, reinforcing the comprehensive nature of the tool's evaluation approach. With its user-friendly, efficient, and adaptable design, S-AWAG has the potential to improve animal welfare standards not only in South Korea but also globally, particularly in smaller, resource-constrained facilities.
Copyright © 2024 Kim, Choi, Ryu and Kang.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-11-19 PubMed ID: 39628865PubMed Central: PMC11611830DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1459560Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study presents the Simplified Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (S-AWAG), a user-friendly tool for assessing animal welfare in zoos, tailored especially for small and private zoos.
  • S-AWAG simplifies the original Animal Welfare Assessment Grid by focusing on easily observable indicators and demonstrates reliability and effectiveness in distinguishing welfare standards across zoo types.

Background and Purpose

  • Animal welfare is crucial for the health and management of zoo animals, impacting both individual well-being and facility operation.
  • The original Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (AWAG) is a comprehensive tool that integrates the Five Domains Model for welfare assessment but can be complex for non-experts to use.
  • The study aims to simplify the AWAG to create a more accessible tool—S-AWAG—that can be effectively applied by non-expert users in smaller or resource-limited zoological settings, like petting zoos or animal cafés.

Development of S-AWAG

  • S-AWAG reduces complexity by focusing on easily observable welfare indicators primarily related to health and environmental conditions.
  • The adaptation incorporates the Five Domains Model, maintaining a comprehensive and multi-dimensional evaluation but emphasizing observation-based data collection.
  • The tool was designed with usability in mind, making it suitable for a wide range of zoo types beyond large, accredited institutions.

Methodology

  • Welfare assessments were conducted on 304 animals representing 11 species.
  • These animals were housed across nine different zoos in South Korea, covering both accredited and non-accredited facilities.
  • Assessors with varying levels of expertise applied the S-AWAG, allowing analysis of inter-rater reliability and usability across different user backgrounds.

Key Findings

  • Significant differences in welfare standards were found between accredited and non-accredited zoos, with accredited zoos showing consistently better welfare (statistically significant at p < 0.05).
  • The tool demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (IRR = 0.839), indicating strong consistency among different assessors.
  • Pearson correlation analysis showed strong positive relationships between health indicators and environmental factors, reflecting the tool’s ability to capture linked welfare dimensions effectively.

Implications and Future Applications

  • S-AWAG’s simplified, observer-friendly design makes it practical for a broad user base, including less experienced personnel in small or private zoos.
  • The tool can aid in raising animal welfare standards globally, especially in facilities with limited resources, by providing a reliable method for ongoing welfare monitoring and assessment.
  • Because it highlights differences based on accreditation status, S-AWAG may serve as a motivator or benchmark for improving welfare practices in non-accredited zoos.

Conclusion

  • The Simplified Animal Welfare Assessment Grid is an efficient, reliable, and accessible tool for assessing animal welfare.
  • Its usability across various zoo environments and user expertise levels suggests strong potential for improving animal welfare management in diverse zoological settings worldwide.

Cite This Article

APA
Kim JY, Choi JH, Ryu H, Kang HJ. (2024). Simplifying the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid for enhanced accessibility. Front Vet Sci, 11, 1459560. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1459560

Publication

Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
NlmUniqueID: 101666658
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 11
Pages: 1459560
PII: 1459560

Researcher Affiliations

Kim, Ji-Yoon
  • Department of Horse/Companion and Wild Animals, College of Ecology and Environmental Science, Kyungpook National University, Sangju, Republic of Korea.
Choi, Jae-Hyeon
  • Department of Horse/Companion and Wild Animals, College of Ecology and Environmental Science, Kyungpook National University, Sangju, Republic of Korea.
Ryu, HyunYoung
  • Department of Horse/Companion and Wild Animals, College of Ecology and Environmental Science, Kyungpook National University, Sangju, Republic of Korea.
Kang, Hye-Jin
  • Department of Horse/Companion and Wild Animals, College of Ecology and Environmental Science, Kyungpook National University, Sangju, Republic of Korea.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 61 references
  1. Escobar-Ibarra I, Mota-Rojas D, Gual-Sill F, Sánchez CR, Baschetto F, Alonso-Spilsbury M. Conservation, animal behaviour, and human-animal relationship in zoos. Why is animal welfare so important?. J Anim Behav Biometeorol (2021) 9:2111.
    doi: 10.31893/jabb.21011google scholar: lookup
  2. Miranda R, Escribano N, Casas M, Pino-del-Carpio A, Villarroya A. The role of zoos and aquariums in a changing world. Ann Rev Anim Biosci (2023) 11:287–306.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-animal-050622-104306pubmed: 36266060google scholar: lookup
  3. Carr N, Cohen S. The public face of zoos: images of entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozoös (2011) 24:175–89.
    doi: 10.2752/175303711X12998632257620google scholar: lookup
  4. Kusiak M. Conservation or exploitation? Assessing the Education Impact of Accredited Zoological Institutions. University of Waterloo; (2015).
  5. Gray JH. An ethical defense of modern zoos. University of Melbourne, Department of Arts; (2015).
  6. Cox JH. Handbook for NGO success with a focus on animal advocacy. London: World Society of the Protection of Animals; (2006).
  7. Cao D, White S. Animal law and welfare-international perspectives. Springer; (2016).
  8. Riedman KK, Cunningham GB, DiVincenti L. Does accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums correlate with animal welfare act compliance?. J Appl Anim Welf Sci (2023) 26:685–92.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2022.2028150pubmed: 35016573google scholar: lookup
  9. Ma S-A, Lee C-Y, Han JS. The minimum zoo accreditation standards for Korean local zoos. J Prev Vet Med (2021) 45:121–8.
    doi: 10.13041/jpvm.2021.45.3.121google scholar: lookup
  10. Yu S. Legislative suggestions for the protection of zoo animals; focusing on the zoo licensing act 1981– the United Kingdom. HUFS Law Rev (2014) 38:15–34.
    doi: 10.17257/hufslr.2014.38.3.15google scholar: lookup
  11. Cho KU, Choe B-I, Kim HY, Han JS, Kim JS. A basic study on the animal welfare evaluation in Korean zoos. Korean J Vet Res (2009) 49:91–9.
  12. Lee S. Study on management system for zoos and aquariums in Korea - in relation to the enactment of the act on Management of Zoos and Aquariums. Environ Law Policy (2016) 17:61–84.
    doi: 10.18215/envlp.17..201609.61google scholar: lookup
  13. Ham T. A study on ethical and legal issues of animal exhibition and modern challenges of zoo. Environ Law Rev (2017) 39:439–73.
    doi: 10.35769/elr.2017.39.3.014google scholar: lookup
  14. Jodidio RL. The animal welfare act is lacking: how to update the federal statute to improve zoo animal welfare. Golden Gate U Envtl LJ (2020) 12:53.
  15. Ward SJ, Williams E, Groves G, Marsh S, Morgan D. Using zoo welfare assessments to identify common issues in developing country zoos. Animals (2020) 10:2101.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10112101pmc: PMC7696472pubmed: 33198237google scholar: lookup
  16. Fourage A, Shepherd CR, Campera M, Nekaris K, Nijman V. It's a sign: animal welfare and zoo type are predictors of animal identification signage usage and quality at zoo exhibits.. Zoo Biol (2023) 42:283–95.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.21734pubmed: 36098522google scholar: lookup
  17. Justice W, O'Brien MF, Szyszka O, Shotton J, Gilmour J, Riordan P. Adaptation of the animal welfare assessment grid (AWAG) for monitoring animal welfare in zoological collections.. Vet Rec (2017) 181:143.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.104309pubmed: 28487453google scholar: lookup
  18. Jones N, Sherwen SL, Robbins R, McLelland DJ, Whittaker AL. Welfare assessment tools in zoos: from theory to practice.. Vet Sci (2022) 9:170.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci9040170pmc: PMC9025157pubmed: 35448668google scholar: lookup
  19. Bacon H, Vigors B, Shaw DJ, Waran N, Dwyer CM, Bell C. Zookeepers – the most important animal in the zoo?. J Appl Anim Welf Sci (2023) 26:634–46.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2021.2012784pubmed: 34894904google scholar: lookup
  20. Ashmawy IKI. NGO involvement in zoo management: a myth or reality?. Environ Dev Sustain (2018) 20:1873–87.
    doi: 10.1007/s10668-017-9939-3google scholar: lookup
  21. Arai K. Proceedings of the future technologies conference (FTC) 559, vol. 3.. Cham: Springer International Publishing; (2023).
  22. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter TE, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB. Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach.. Anim Behav (2001) 62:209–20.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1741google scholar: lookup
  23. Dunn RA. The sooner the better: the arguments for the use of extended welfare assessment grids in animal welfare cases.. Liverpool Law Rev (2020) 41:107–27.
    doi: 10.1007/s10991-020-09243-2google scholar: lookup
  24. Fernandes J, Blache D, Maloney SK, Martin GB, Venus B, Walker FR. Addressing animal welfare through collaborative stakeholder networks.. Agriculture (2019) 9:132.
    doi: 10.3390/agriculture9060132google scholar: lookup
  25. Blokhuis H, Miele M, Veissier I, Jones B. Improving farm animal welfare.. Wageningen Academic Publishers; (2013).
  26. Hampton JO, Hemsworth LM, Hemsworth PH, Hyndman TH, Sandøe P. Rethinking the utility of the five domains model.. Anim Welf (2023) 32:e62.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.84pmc: PMC10936274pubmed: 38487458google scholar: lookup
  27. Dam Otten N, Rousing T, Forkman B. Influence of professional affiliation on expert’s view on welfare measures.. Animals (2017) 7:85.
    doi: 10.3390/ani7110085pmc: PMC5704114pubmed: 29140262google scholar: lookup
  28. Brouwers S, Duchateau MJ. Feasibility and validity of the animal welfare assessment grid to monitor the welfare of zoo-housed gorillas .. J Zoo Aquarium Res (2021) 9:208–17.
    doi: 10.19227/jzar.v9i4.607google scholar: lookup
  29. Spiriti MM, Melchiori FM, Dierkes PW, Ferrante L, Bandoli F, Biasetti P. Development of a tool for assessing the reputation of zoos: the zoo ethical reputation survey (ZERS).. Animals (2022) 12:2802.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12202802pmc: PMC9597707pubmed: 36290188google scholar: lookup
  30. Casamitjana J. Inspecting Zoos: A Study of the Official Zoo Inspection System in England from 2005 to 2011.. The Captive Animals’ Protection Society (2011).
  31. Webb JL, Crawley JA, Seltmann MW, Liehrmann O, Hemmings N, Nyein UK. Evaluating the reliability of non-specialist observers in the behavioural assessment of semi-captive Asian elephant welfare.. Animals (2020) 10:167.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010167pmc: PMC7022305pubmed: 31963758google scholar: lookup
  32. Normando S, Pollastri I, Florio D, Ferrante L, Macchi E, Isaja V. Assessing animal welfare in animal-visitor interactions in zoos and other facilities. A pilot study involving giraffes.. Animals (2018) 8:153.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8090153pmc: PMC6162555pubmed: 30200194google scholar: lookup
  33. O’Brien SL, Cronin KA. Doing better for understudied species: evaluation and improvement of a species-general animal welfare assessment tool for zoos.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2023) 264:105965.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2023.105965google scholar: lookup
  34. Ryan M, Waters R, Wolfensohn S. Assessment of the welfare of experimental cattle and pigs using the animal welfare assessment grid.. Animals (2021) 11:999.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11040999pmc: PMC8065713pubmed: 33918263google scholar: lookup
  35. Whitham JC, Wielebnowski N. Animal-based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool.. Zoo Biol (2009) 28:545–60.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.20281pubmed: 19851995google scholar: lookup
  36. Sherwen SL, Hemsworth LM, Beausoleil NJ, Embury A, Mellor DJ. An animal welfare risk assessment process for zoos.. Animals (2018) 8:130.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8080130pmc: PMC6116011pubmed: 30060544google scholar: lookup
  37. Diaz-Lundahl S, Hellestveit S, Stubsjøen SM, J Phythian C, Oppermann Moe R, Muri K. Intra-and inter-observer reliability of qualitative behaviour assessments of housed sheep in Norway.. Animals (2019) 9:569.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9080569pmc: PMC6719082pubmed: 31426493google scholar: lookup
  38. Ma S-A, Kang H-J, Lee K, Kim S-A, Han JS. Animal welfare assessment in 16 zoos in South Korea using the modified animal welfare assessment grid.. Front Vet Sci (2022) 9:860741.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.860741pmc: PMC9090471pubmed: 35558886google scholar: lookup
  39. Veasey JS. Differing animal welfare conceptions and what they mean for the future of zoos and aquariums, insights from an animal welfare audit.. Zoo Biol (2022) 41:292–307.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.21677pmc: PMC9543569pubmed: 35255158google scholar: lookup
  40. Hill SP, Broom DM. Measuring zoo animal welfare: theory and practice.. Zoo Biol (2009) 28:531–44.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.20276pubmed: 19816909google scholar: lookup
  41. Wolfensohn S, Shotton J, Bowley H, Davies S, Thompson S, Justice WS. Assessment of welfare in zoo animals: towards optimum quality of life.. Animals (2018) 8:110.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8070110pmc: PMC6071229pubmed: 29973560google scholar: lookup
  42. Narshi TM, Free D, Justice WS, Smith SJ, Wolfensohn S. Welfare assessment of invertebrates: adapting the animal welfare assessment grid (AWAG) for zoo decapods and cephalopods.. Animals (2022) 12:1675.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12131675pmc: PMC9264806pubmed: 35804574google scholar: lookup
  43. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B. The 2020 five domains model: including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare.. Animals (2020) 10:1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  44. Mota-Rojas D, Ghezzi MD, Domínguez-Oliva A, de la Vega LT, Boscato-Funes L, Torres-Bernal F. Circus animal welfare: analysis through a five-domain approach.. J Anim Behav Biometeorol (2022) 10:1–6.
    doi: 10.31893/jabb.22021google scholar: lookup
  45. Ghimire R, Brown JL, Thitaram C, Bansiddhi P. Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia.. Front Vet Sci (2024) 11:1370909.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1370909pmc: PMC10964907pubmed: 38532794google scholar: lookup
  46. King K, Joblon M, McNally K, Clayton L, Pettis H, Corkeron P. Assessing North Atlantic right whale () welfare.. J Zool Botanical Gardens (2021) 2:728–39.
    doi: 10.3390/jzbg2040052google scholar: lookup
  47. Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial.. Tutorials Quant Methods Psychol (2012) 8:23–34.
    doi: 10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023pmc: PMC3402032pubmed: 22833776google scholar: lookup
  48. Brando S, Buchanan-Smith HM. The 24/7 approach to promoting optimal welfare for captive wild animals.. Behav Process (2018) 156:83–95.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.09.010pubmed: 29113925google scholar: lookup
  49. Racciatti DS, Feld A, Rial LA, Blanco C, Tallo-Parra O. Ackonc-AWA: a multi-species animal welfare assessment protocol for wild animals under human care to overcome the use of generic welfare checklists.. Front Vet Sci (2022) 9:1033821.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1033821pmc: PMC9773254pubmed: 36570507google scholar: lookup
  50. Raw Z, Rodrigues JB, Rickards K, Ryding J, Norris SL, Judge A. Equid assessment, research and scoping (EARS): the development and implementation of a new equid welfare assessment and monitoring tool.. Animals (2020) 10:297.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020297pmc: PMC7070371pubmed: 32069910google scholar: lookup
  51. Meagher RK. Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2009) 119:1–14.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026google scholar: lookup
  52. Meyers LS. Performing data analysis using IBM SPSS(R).. 1st ed. Hoboken: Wiley; (2013).
  53. Malkani R, Paramasivam S, Wolfensohn S. Preliminary validation of a novel tool to assess dog welfare: the animal welfare assessment grid.. Front Vet Sci (2022) 9:940017.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.940017pmc: PMC9523688pubmed: 36187841google scholar: lookup
  54. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.. J R Stat Soc Ser B (1995) 57:289–300.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  55. Tallo-Parra O, Salas M, Manteca X. Zoo animal welfare assessment: where do we stand?. Animals (2023) 13:1966.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13121966pmc: PMC10294817pubmed: 37370476google scholar: lookup
  56. Phillips JA. A holistic view of reptile physiology.. Captive propagation and husbandry of reptiles and amphibians. NCHS-BAARS Publ: Davis, CA; (1984). p. 25–38.
  57. Warwick C, Arena P, Lindley S, Jessop M, Steedman C. Assessing reptile welfare using behavioural criteria.. In Pract (2013) 35:123–31.
    doi: 10.1136/inp.f1197google scholar: lookup
  58. Woods JM, Eyer A, Miller LJ. Bird welfare in zoos and aquariums: general insights across industries.. J Zool Botanical Gardens (2022) 3:198–222.
    doi: 10.3390/jzbg3020017google scholar: lookup
  59. Reese L, Ladwig-Wiegard M, Von Fersen L, Haase G, Will H, Merle R. Deflighting zoo birds and its welfare considerations.. Anim Welf (2020) 29:69–80.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.29.1.069google scholar: lookup
  60. Lewis RN, Chang YM, Ferguson A, Lee T, Clifforde L, Abeyesinghe SM. The effect of visitors on the behavior of zoo-housed western lowland gorillas ().. Zoo Biol (2020) 39:283–96.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.21552pubmed: 32813293google scholar: lookup
  61. Sherwen SL, Magrath MJL, Butler KL, Phillips CJC, Hemsworth PH. A multi-enclosure study investigating the behavioural response of meerkats to zoo visitors.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2014) 156:70–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.04.012google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Tong L, Fang J, Wang X, Zhao Y. Cattle welfare assessment based on adaptive fuzzy logic and multimodal data fusion.. Front Vet Sci 2025;12:1568715.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1568715pubmed: 40271485google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,005 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.