Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42100220›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2026

Advancing evidence-informed practice in modern zoos: research priorities for animal welfare, conservation, and social legitimacy.

Paul Rose, Idu Azogu-Sepe, Lisa Clifforde, Jessica Harley, Kerry Hunt, Robert Kelly, Ricardo Lemos de Figueiredo, Justine Partoon, Christina R Stanley, Mark Whiteside

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Paul RoseCentre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Idu Azogu-SepeSerengeti-Park Department of Research, Serengeti-Park Hodenhagen GmbH, Hodenhagen, Germany.
Lisa CliffordeZoological Society of London, London, United Kingdom.
Jessica HarleyKnowsley Safari, Prescot, United Kingdom.
Kerry HuntSEA LIFE, Poole, United Kingdom.
Robert KellyCentre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Ricardo Lemos de FigueiredoBristol Zoological Society, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Justine PartoonZoos South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Christina R StanleyAnimal Behaviour and Welfare Research Group, School of Natural Sciences, University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom.
Mark WhitesideSchool of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern zoos operate at the intersection of conservation responsibility, ethical accountability and scientific advancement, while facing increasing public scrutiny and rising expectations for transparency and measurable impact. This scrutiny often focuses on animal welfare and the justification for maintaining wild animals in captive environments. Consequently, there is a growing need for zoo-based research to move beyond often anecdotal practice toward robust, evidence-informed decision-making. Evidence refers to systematically collected data and critically evaluated research used to inform management strategies that promote the zoo's key aims. This article synthesises key areas in which contemporary zoo operations rely on limited or untested evidence and identifies priority research questions critical to the future legitimacy and effectiveness of zoos. The paper explores several interlinked themes: the welfare implications of reproduction and breeding management; the role of social bonds in welfare, stress resilience, and translocation outcomes; the underrepresentation of nutrition within animal welfare research; the impacts of human-animal interactions involving both staff and visitors; the maintenance of species-specific behaviours and behavioural diversity in ex situ managed populations; and the relationship between animal welfare, visitor experience, and a zoo's social licence to operate. These themes were identified through persistent assumptions in zoo practice, gaps in the empirical literature, and increasing societal expectations for transparency, ethical justification, and measurable outcomes. Across these areas, the paper highlights a recurring challenge: management practices are frequently justified on theoretical or historical grounds rather than validated, applied outcomes, and conclusions from single studies are often overinterpreted despite limited replication or contextual relevance. Our article therefore emphasises the importance of defining credible evidence, critically appraising published research, and adopting replicated, collaborative multi-institutional and mixed-methods approaches. By outlining these research priorities, this paper provides a framework for advancing zoo-based science that can directly inform management decisions, improve animal welfare outcomes, strengthen conservation impact, build public trust and thus future-proof the zoo industry. Ultimately, we argue that the future success of zoos depends on aligning ethical practice, rigorous research, and meaningful visitor engagement through transparent, evidence-driven approaches.

Indexed as

applied welfare researchevidence-based managementex situ conservationhuman-animal interactionssocial license to operatezoo animal welfare

Identifiers

PMID42100220
PMCPMC13144771

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.