1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
2
3
4
5
6
Conflict in conservation: a survey-based descriptive study to determine differing perceptions of
animal welfare and wildlife conservation between conservationists, animal welfare scientists and
veterinarians
7
8
9
M.J. Dewson*a
10
11
12
a
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Surrey University, Vet School
Main Building (VSM), Daphne Jackson Road, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7AL
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
* Corresponding author. Tel. +44 07576 202 099
Email address: md00966@surrey.ac.uk (M.J. Dewson).
35
36
Abstract
Historically, contention has existed between the disciplines of wildlife conservation and animal welfare.
37
With the degradation of animal’s habitats increasingly impinging on their welfare as human intervention
38
expands, effective collaboration between these disciplines is needed to protect animal populations and
39
uphold the welfare of individual animals within said populations. The main aim of the research was to
40
uncover potential reasons for the disconnect between these disciplines. Through an online questionnaire,
41
participants were asked a mix of qualitative and quantitative questions regarding their opinions on topics
42
surrounding animal welfare and conservation. Word cloud analysis and Kruskal Wallis tests were used to
43
compare the distributions of participants answers and explore their potential meaning. It was found that
44
positive mindsets towards the further collaboration of wildlife conservationists and animal welfare scientists
45
do indeed exist. Most notably, changes in animal welfare standards as well as training & education practices
46
in wildlife conservation regarding animal welfare are believed to help achieve this notion. In conclusion,
47
desire for further collaboration between the disciplines of wildlife conservation and animal welfare are
48
present. Identifying the changes that need to be made regarding the standards of animal welfare, as well as
49
training & educational practices in wildlife conservation regarding animal welfare are paramount in order to
50
encourage further collaboration.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Key words
Attitudes, animal welfare, perceptions, veterinarians, wildlife conservation
60
Introduction
61
Both the disciplines of wildlife conservation & animal welfare share the common cause of acting as
62
guides for action and policy regarding animal treatment, whether that be in wilderness or research settings
63
(Fraser, 2010). Although it’s true that simply put, wildlife conservation and animal welfare have different
64
focuses, the former focuses more on ecosystems, populations, and species whereas the latter is more
65
concerned with the feelings of individual animals. Regardless, it’d still be logical for collaboration to occur
66
between these disciplines for their own mutual benefit. However, previous research identified that these two
67
disciplines struggle to work harmoniously, leading to the idea that unified collaboration remains a point of
68
contention (Harrop, 2011; Paquet, 2010; Soulé, 1985).
69
70
In recent years, trends of human intervention are leading to increasing amount of wildlife destruction,
71
habitat reduction, fragmentation, degradation, and species extinction (Deem, 2007; Paquet, 2010; Raquel et
72
al., 2019). As such, there’s a growing need for collaborative efforts to be made between these two
73
disciplines, to protect the welfare of animals and their habitats, regardless of contention (Beausoleil et al.,
74
2018).
75
76
However, these efforts tend to tip the scales in favour of wildlife conservation, with events that can
77
negatively impact animal welfare (e.g. stressful capture and transportation of wildlife) being ever present in
78
conservation efforts (Keulartz, 2015; Pohlin et al., 2020). Beausoleil et al. (2018) discussed that a key factor
79
in this issue could be due to a discrepancy in how animal welfare is defined between these fields, and that a
80
shared understanding of its meaning could be the next step towards unity of these two scientific disciplines.
81
But as Proulx et al., (2020) analysed, there is also evidence in literature of conservationists championing the
82
improvement of outdated practices for the sake of improving animal welfare standards, and the researcher
83
involved is by no means attempting to downplay such progress.
84
85
Regarding this contention, discussion of a new ethical framework has emerged in recent years, that
86
being “Conservation Welfare”. As Learmonth (2020) explains, conservation welfare offers a more
87
pragmatic approach when it comes to the suffering of animals. As such, it could offer wildlife
88
conservationists a more agreeable approach to integrating animal welfare-based decisions into new
89
conservation practice and policy. A prime example of this are zoos and aquariums, where integration of the
90
conservation welfare framework into such places could make positive changes to day-to-day activities, as
91
suggested by WAZA1. Ballantyne et al. (2007) further support this statement, explaining that zoos are
92
already heavily interested in both wildlife conservation and the upholding of animal welfare standards, so
93
much so that approximately one-in-seven endangered species are kept in zoological institutions for
94
conservation-related purposes (Escobar-Ibarra et al., 2020). In addition, as discussed by Beausoleil et al.
95
(2018), animal welfare scientists and biologists in zoos have the potential to spearhead policy and practice
96
changes relating to wildlife conservation and animal welfare in these areas. As such, their consolidated
97
beliefs on the topic could provide knowledge from a unique perspective that would benefit collaborative
98
efforts between the disciplines of wildlife conservation and animal welfare.
99
Furthermore, the importance of veterinarians on this topic can’t be ignored. Whether this be due to their
100
101
efforts to minimise animal suffering, or their inherent knowledge on issues surrounding animal welfare
102
(Villalobos, 2011). This can especially be said for zoo veterinarians and wildlife veterinarians, both of
103
whom are heavily involved in conservative efforts and individual animal welfare (Braverman,
104
2018;Lanfranchi et al., 2003). As Svendsen and Larsen (2015) discussed in relation to the euthanasia of
105
Marius the giraffe at Copenhagen Zoo in 2014, these veterinarians walk a fine line between the principles of
106
conservationism (both in-situ & ex-situ) and animal welfare. Due to their interdisciplinary role, their
107
understandings and beliefs on animal welfare and wildlife conservation are to be acknowledged and
108
appreciated.
1
See: THE WORLD ZOO AND AQUARIUM ANIMAL WELFARE STRATEGY CARING FOR WILDLIFE, 2015.
https://www.waza.org/priorities/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-strategies/ (accessed 27/02/22)
109
110
For this study, the main objective was to uncover the reasons for the disconnect between the disciplines
111
of wildlife conservation and animal welfare. This was to be achieved by analysing the opinions of wildlife
112
conservationists, animal welfare scientists, and veterinarians via a mix of qualitative and quantitative
113
questions relating to animal welfare and conservation. It was hoped that the answers obtained from said
114
study would identify any significant similarities or differences in opinion between the different occupations.
115
This is in order to provide insight into the changes that could prove useful in furthering collaboration
116
between the disciplines of wildlife conservation and animal welfare.
117
118
Materials and methods
119
Design
120
An online survey was designed to gain insight into the varying viewpoints of the selected target
121
demographics, regarding questions around the disciplines of animal welfare, wildlife conservation and
122
conservation welfare. This method was chosen due to the speed at which results are typically generated, and
123
how data was able to be manipulated, visualised, and compared with relative ease (Jones et al., 2013).
124
125
The survey was designed and distributed in JISC. All participants were informed that; the survey would
126
take at most 5 minutes, they could opt out at any time, and that the study followed the University of Surrey's
127
Ethics Committee protocols via the Self-Assessment for Governance and Ethics and was deemed to not
128
require ethical approval (801367-801358-90115952) on 14/02/2022 (Appendix). All participants who
129
completed the survey were given the offer to opt in for a monetary prize draw. Data gathered in JISC was
130
exported directly into SPSS for analysis.
131
132
Recruitment/target population
Participants were required to be ≥18, reside in the UK, and broadly fit the role of either a
133
134
conservationist, animal welfare scientist or veterinarian (Table 1). Participants were acquired through
135
several avenues, that being: open Facebook groups, the University of Surrey’s VetSoc newsletter, and via
136
the contact of relevant professionals by co-facilitators. Veterinarians were also contacted using emails found
137
publicly on the ‘Find a Vet’ services of the RCVS2 and EBVS3 websites. Survey participants who didn’t fit
138
the inclusion & exclusion criteria had their data stored but weren’t used in the primary study.
139
Using Qualtrics4, a power study analysis was performed to discover that the study would need an
140
141
estimated minimum of 382 respondents at a 95% confidence interval and a 5% margin of error.
142
Unfortunately, only 173 valid responses were obtained.
143
144
Before the main survey was released, a preliminary pilot study was first conducted in which 6 responses
145
were received, with these results being used to optimise the clarity and relevance of the real surveys
146
contents (Nunes et al., 2010).
147
148
Word cloud analysis
149
All qualitative data was to be visualised via word clouds using Jason Davie’s word cloud generator5,
150
with the size of the words depending on how frequently they were used by participants. Also, frequencies of
151
the ten most commonly used words for each word cloud were to be obtained using the WriteWords word
152
frequency counter6 and tabulated. This allowed the data to be rapidly presented in an understandable format,
153
allowing anyone interpreting the data to easily observe the main themes that were identified by the
154
qualitative questions (DePaolo and Wilkinson, 2014; Smiciklas, 2012).
2
See: RCVS specialities list. https://findavet.rcvs.org.uk/home/. (Accessed 10/02/2022)
See: EBVS specialities list. https://ebvs.eu/specialists. (Accessed 09/03/2022)
4
See: Qualtrics power calculator. https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/. (Accessed 05/04/2022)
5
See: word cloud generator. https://www.jasondavies.com/wordcloud/. (Accessed 04/04/2022)
6
See: word frequency generator. http://www.writewords.org.uk/word_count.asp. (Accessed 28/03/2022)
3
155
156
All responses in regards to the open-ended questions were manually edited and processed. This consisted of
157
the following steps: correction of spelling errors, removal of inappropriate answers (i.e. numbers, random
158
letters), removal of adverbs (i.e. ‘strongly support’ changed to ‘support’), removal of sentences, or altering
159
words which have the same meaning in order to group them as one (i.e. ‘protection’ and ‘protect’). Also, if
160
two words were provided (i.e. ‘healthy and welfare’), only the first word was utilised, as this would have
161
likely been the first word the participant thought of. Finally, some phrases that exceeded the one-word limit
162
were kept as these concepts couldn’t be described in one word by participants (i.e. positive-affective-state,
163
environmental-protection).
164
165
166
Likert scale analysis
All quantitative data obtained via Likert Scale questions were compared using a Kruskal Wallis test to
167
assess for any significant differences in the data, with p values being set at <0.05. For these tests, the
168
distributions of each occupations answers were compared against each other to look for a significant
169
difference in said distributions. The resulting data was presented via box plots and bar charts designed. The
170
bar charts were chosen to show the volume of responses for each answer option, whereas the box plots were
171
used to display the differing distributions of answers between the different occupations.
172
173
Results
174
Demographics of participants
175
Overall, 180 people attempted to participate in the survey. The majority of participants were male
176
(53.8%) and occupied the age brackets of 18-29 (46.2%) or 30-39 (31.2%) (Table 1). Of this data, 6 of the
177
participants who selected ‘other’ for their occupation were excluded from the data analysis, as each of their
178
stated occupations were deemed unsuitable for the study (i.e. unemployed, service worker, actor). Another
179
participant was removed manually for not being based in the UK, bringing usable responses down to 173.
180
The remaining participants who selected ‘Other’ all fitted into the occupation of veterinarian (i.e. GP vet,
181
veterinary clinical pathologist). However, these participants were still too distinct from each other to be
182
placed into the other veterinary-based groups and were also not numerous enough to be put into newly made
183
groups. Therefore for clarities sake, their responses were kept in the ‘Other’ group for analysis.
184
185
At first glance, the most well represented group in this study would seem to be conservationists (27.2%),
186
but if all veterinary-based groups are summated, they comprise 46.8% of responses. The most under-
187
represented group here were animal welfare scientists (9.8%) (Table 1).
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
Table 1: Demographics of participants from the survey
Qualitative data
Every valid word/phrase from the qualitative questions (questions 5-7) were amalgamated into 3
203
separate word clouds (Figures 1a-3a), with the size of the words in said diagrams being proportional to the
204
frequency of which they were used by participants. For each of these word clouds, the frequency of all
205
words used were quantified, with the top 10 most frequently used words being visualised in tables (Figures
206
1b-3b).
207
208
When participants were asked for which three words came to mind when thinking of animal welfare,
209
they most commonly used the word ‘health’. Other commonly used words included ‘environment’, ‘diet’ or
210
‘management’ (Figure 1a).
211
212
In a similar vein, when participants were asked which three words came to mind when thinking of
213
wildlife conservation, the most commonly used word was ‘protect’, with other high-ranking words being
214
‘environment’, ‘nature’ and ‘responsibility’ (Figure 2a).
215
216
Finally, when participants were asked which three words came to mind when thinking of the concept of
217
the conservation welfare framework, the most frequent response was ‘animal’, with other common words
218
being ‘protect’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘welfare’ (Figure 3a).
219
Figure 1a: words that participants associated with animal welfare when posed
with the question: “What are the first three words that come to mind when
thinking of the concept of animal welfare?” The size of each word correlates
with how frequently it was used by participants
220
Figure 1b: table of the ten most commonly used words
when participants were asked “What are the first three
words that come to mind when thinking of the concept
of animal welfare?” (n=394)
Figure 2a: words that participants associated with wildlife conservation
when posed with the question: “What are the first three words that come to
mind when thinking of wildlife conservation?” The size of each word
correlates with how frequently it was used by participants
Figure 2b: table of the ten most commonly used words
when participants were asked “What are the first three
words that come to mind when thinking of wildlife
conservation?” (n=475)
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
Figure 3a: words that participants associated with the conservation
welfare ethical framework when posed with the question: “What are the
first three words that come to you most strongly when you think about
the concept of the conservation welfare ethical framework?” The size of
each word correlates with how frequently it was used by participants
Figure 3b: table of the ten most commonly used
words when participants were asked “What are the
first three words that come to you most strongly
when you think about the concept of the
conservation welfare ethical framework?” (n=495)
Quantitative data
229
Firstly, for the statement “There is a lack of agreement between the disciplines of animal welfare and
230
conservation” (Figure 4), it was found that 86.7% of participants agreed/strongly agreed with the statement
231
(Appendix, figure 11), though this wasn’t seen as significant (p=0.059) (Appendix, figure 18).
232
233
For the statement “Upholding good animal welfare standards are difficult in conservation work” (Figure
234
5), only 57.8% of participants agreed/strongly agreed. (Appendix, figure 12). Although, a significant
235
variation in answers between different occupations was observed (p=0.011) (Appendix, figure 18).
236
237
Regarding levels of agreement on the statement “Good animal welfare practice supports conservation
238
efforts” (Figure 6), 87.3% of participants agreed/strongly agreed (Appendix, figure 13). However, there was
239
no significant difference in answers between groups (p=0.459) (Appendix, figure 18).
240
241
Looking at levels of agreement regarding the statement “In the context of rescue and release
242
rehabilitation programmes, negative states of stress to the animal(s) that may compromise the animal's
243
welfare are necessary to an extent” (Figure 7), a significant difference between occupations responses was
244
noted (p=0.026) (Appendix, figure 18), with only 55.5% agreeing/strongly agreeing (Appendix, figure 14).
245
246
For the statement “The protection of a group/species of animals is more important than the preservation
247
of a few animals welfare of the same species” (Figure 8), only 58.4% of participants agreed/strongly agreed
248
(Appendix, figure 15). Here, an almost significant variation in responses was seen (p=0.069) (Appendix,
249
figure 18).
250
251
Regarding levels of agreement on the statement “There is a need to change animal welfare standards”
252
(Figure 9), 72.8% of participants agreed/strongly agreed (Appendix, figure 16). This resulted in an
253
insignificant variation of results (p=0.249) (Appendix, figure 18).
254
255
Regarding levels of agreement on the statement “Changes in education and training practices are needed
256
in conservation to better animal welfare” (Figure 10), an astounding 85% of participants agreed/strongly
257
agreed (Appendix, Figure 17). Leading to a lack of significant variation in answers (p=0.530) (Appendix,
258
figure 18).
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
Figure 4: Box plot and bar chart displaying and comparing the distributions of answers between participants and
their occupation/job role regarding their level of agreement on the statement: "There is a lack of agreement between
the disciplines of animal welfare and conservation."
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
Figure 5: Box plot and bar chart displaying and comparing the distributions of answers between participants and
their occupation/job role regarding their level of agreement on the statement: "Upholding good animal welfare
standards are difficult to manage in conservation work."
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
Figure 6: Box plot and bar chart displaying and comparing the distributions of answers between participants and
their occupation/job role regarding their level of agreement on the statement: "Good animal welfare practices
support conservation efforts."
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
Figure 7: Box plot and bar chart displaying and comparing the distributions of answers between participants and their
occupation/job role regarding their level of agreement on the statement: “In the context of rescue and release
rehabilitation programmes, negative states of stress to the animal(s) that may compromise the animal's welfare are
necessary to an extent.”
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
Figure 8: Box plot and bar chart displaying and comparing the distributions of answers between participants and their
occupation/job role regarding their level of agreement on the statement: “The protection of a group/species of animals is
more important than the preservation of a few animals welfare of the same species.”
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
Figure 9: Box plot and bar chart displaying and comparing the distributions of answers between participants and
their occupation/job role regarding their level of agreement on the statement: "There is a need to change animal
welfare standards."
302
303
304
305
306
307
Figure 10: Box plot and bar chart displaying and comparing the distributions of answers between participants and their
occupation/job role regarding their level of agreement on the statement: "Changes in education and training practices are
needed in conservation to better animal welfare."
308
309
310
Discussion
The findings of this study show that certain attitudes regarding animal welfare, wildlife conservation and
311
conservation welfare are indeed shared between the different occupations, which may contradict other
312
authors such as Paquet (2010), who believed that notable contention remained on the topic. 72.8% of
313
participants agreed that a change needs to be made to animal welfare standards (Figure 9), 87.3% agreed that
314
good animal welfare practices can support conservation efforts (Figure 6), and 85% agreed that changes in
315
education and training are needed in conservation works to better animal welfare (Figure 10). Collectively,
316
this suggests that positive attitudes towards the idea of collaboration between the disciplines of animal
317
welfare and wildlife conservation do exist. This link could be solidified by synergistically integrating
318
principles of animal welfare science directly into the principles of wildlife conservation, as suggested by
319
Beausoleil et al. (2018), with their thoughts on the creation of the “Conservation Welfare” ethical
320
framework.
321
Furthermore, the ‘environment’ was considered as an important topic for both animal welfare and
322
wildlife conservation as identified by open-ended questioning (Figure 1b, Figure 2b). This could suggest that
323
participants shared the attitude that the state of an animals habitat plays a large role in their individual
324
welfare and therefore demands attention (Paquet, 2010). In conjunction with the fact that the majority of
325
participants agreed that the protection of a species outweighs the need to preserve the welfare of a few
326
members of said species (Figure 8), a common theme seems to arise regarding the importance of prioritising
327
the protection of species and their habitats as a whole. Interestingly, these results don’t align with the
328
traditional view that more animal-welfare oriented individuals (i.e. animal welfare scientists) will vouch for
329
individual welfare over species/habitat issues(Dubois and Fraser, 2013; Littlewood and Beausoleil, 2021).
330
This distribution of answers may stem from the idea that activities threatening the welfare of individual
331
animals are likely to also detriment wildlife conservation goals (e.g. habitat destruction), and that reductions
332
in animal welfare are acceptable if the survival of the said population or species is at stake (Beausoleil et al.,
333
2018; Keulartz, 2015). In conjunction with this, veterinarians most commonly used words like ‘health’ or
334
‘environment’ to describe their thoughts on animal welfare (Figure 1a), which may go against perceptions
335
that vets have more animal welfare-focused goals in mind. Although it must be noted that these answers
336
could be due to the high number of zoo veterinarians present in the sample (Table 1), as this group of
337
veterinary professionals often have the responsibility of working with more conservation-based goals in
338
mind (e.g. breeding programmes, population management) compared to other veterinary specialisations
339
(Braverman, 2018).
340
341
Furthermore, the idea that stress/suffering is necessary to an extent in certain situations appears more
342
controversial than some may inherently believe. Surprisingly, 61.7% of conservationists were either unsure
343
or in disagreement with the idea that in the context of rescue and release rehabilitation programmes,
344
negative states of stress to the animal(s) that may compromise the animal's welfare are necessary to an
345
extent” (Figure 7), more than any other group set. This coincides with the opinions of Kirkwood and
346
Sainsbury (1996), who believed that the stress and suffering brought on by certain conservation activities
347
(i.e. wildlife capture, rehabilitation, relocation) could be detrimental to an animal’s welfare long term,
348
despite such interventions being executed inherently for the animals benefit. As such, this indicates that a
349
proportion of wildlife conservationists already incorporate animal welfare principles into their work, as
350
opposed to only thinking with a conservation-centered mindset (Proulx et al., 2020).
351
352
It must be stated that the validity of the study was held back by its insufficient sample size, possibly due
353
to the fact that participant acquisition was largely reliant on open Facebook groups. The use of said groups is
354
suspected to have allowed for a plethora of dishonest participants (i.e. not being in their stated occupation)
355
to participate, potentially muddying responses left by more appropriate participants. Therefore, acquiring
356
participants solely through more official avenues, such as direct contact of known professionals, may help to
357
alleviate this issue in future studies. Regarding the open-ended questions, many participants submitted
358
answers exceeding the pre-stated three-word cap, suggesting this limit was too constricting. In similar future
359
endeavours, questions such as these should be designed with more accommodating formats in mind.
360
361
Future analysis could hope to find out what specific educational and practical changes surrounding
362
animal welfare could be made to the workings of wildlife conservation, in hopes of bringing the two
363
disciplines closer together under a set of shared objectives.
364
365
366
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study has identified several ideas that could be expanded upon in order to further the
367
collaboration between the disciplines of wildlife conservation and animal welfare. Most notably, that the
368
majority of wildlife conservationists, animal welfare scientists and veterinarians in the study agreed that
369
changes to animal welfare standards and educational practices within wildlife conservation regarding animal
370
welfare need to be changed. It’s vital for future studies to uncover exactly what needs to be changed in this
371
regard in order to encourage further collaboration and cooperation between these groups.
372
373
374
375
376
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all of those who participated in the study, Sharmini Paramasivam, Will
Justice, and Phillip Riordan for their help in creating this study.
377
378
Funding information
This study was financially supported by the University of Surrey.
379
380
381
Ethics statement
This study followed the University of Surrey's Ethics Committee protocols via the Self-Assessment for
382
Governance and Ethics and was deemed to not require ethical approval (801367-801358-90115952) on
383
14/02/2022.
384
385
386
Conflicts of interest
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.
387
388
References
389
390
391
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., Dierking, L., 2007. Environmental Education Research
Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701430604
392
393
394
395
396
Beausoleil, N.J., Mellor, D.J., Baker, L., Baker, S.E., Bellio, M., Clarke, A.S., Dale, A., Garlick, S.,
Jones, B., Harvey, A., Pitcher, B.J., Sherwen, S., Stockin, K.A., Zito, S., 2018. “Feelings and
fitness” Not “Feelings or fitness”-The Raison d’être of conservation welfare, which aligns
conservation and animal welfare objectives. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00296
397
398
Braverman, I., 2018. Saving Species, One Individual at a Time: Zoo Veterinarians Between Welfare
and Conservation. Humanimalia 9.
399
400
401
Braverman, I., n.d. Saving Species, One Individual at a Time: Zoo Veterinarians Saving Species, One
Individual at a Time: Zoo Veterinarians Between Welfare and Conservation Between Welfare
and Conservation. Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Spring 4–5.
402
403
404
Deem, S.L., 2007. Role of the zoo veterinarian in the conservation of captive and free-ranging
wildlife. International Zoo Yearbook 41, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.17481090.2007.00020.X
405
406
407
DePaolo, C.A., Wilkinson, K., 2014. Get Your Head into the Clouds: Using Word Clouds for
Analyzing Qualitative Assessment Data. TechTrends 58, 38–44.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S11528-014-0750-9
408
409
410
Dubois, S., Fraser, D., 2013. Rating harms to wildlife: A survey showing convergence between
conservation and animal welfare views. Animal Welfare 22, 49–55.
https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.1.049
411
412
413
414
415
Escobar-Ibarra, I., Mota-Rojas, D., Gual-Sill, F., Sánchez, C.R., Baschetto, F., Alonso-Spilsbury, M.,
Escobar-Ibarra, I., Mota-Rojas, D., Gual-Sill, F., Sánchez, C.R., Baschetto, F., AlonsoSpilsbury, M., 2020. Conservation, animal behaviour, and human-animal relationship in zoos.
Why is animal welfare so important? Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology 9, 0–0.
https://doi.org/10.31893/JABB.21011
416
417
Fraser, D., 2010. Toward a Synthesis of Conservation and Animal Welfare Science. Conservation
Biology and Animal Welfare Collection.
418
419
420
Harrop, S., 2011. Climate Change, Conservation and the Place for Wild Animal Welfare in
International Law. Source: Journal of Environmental Law 23, 441–462.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqr017
421
422
Jones, T.L., Baxter, M., Khanduja, V., 2013. A quick guide to survey research. Annals of The Royal
College of Surgeons of England 95, 5. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588413X13511609956372
423
424
Keulartz, J., 2015. Captivity for Conservation? Zoos at a Crossroads. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 2015 28:2 28, 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10806-015-9537-Z
425
426
Kirkwood, J.K., Sainsbury, A.W., 1996. ETHICS OF INTERVENTIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF
FREE-LIVING WILD ANIMALS.
427
428
429
Lanfranchi, P., Ferroglio, E., Poglayen, G., Guberti, V., 2003. Wildlife Veterinarian, Conservation
and Public Health. Veterinary Research Communications 2003 27:1 27, 567–574.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VERC.0000014219.29166.37
430
431
432
433
Learmonth, M.J., 2020. Human–Animal Interactions in Zoos: What Can Compassionate
Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care Tell Us about the Ethics of Interacting,
and Avoiding Unintended Consequences? Animals 2020, Vol. 10, Page 2037 10, 2037.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ANI10112037
434
435
436
Littlewood, K.E., Beausoleil, N.J., 2021. Two Domains to Five: Advancing Veterinary Duty of Care
to Fulfil Public Expectations of Animal Welfare Expertise. Animals 2021, Vol. 11, Page 3504
11, 3504. https://doi.org/10.3390/ANI11123504
437
438
439
Nunes, J.M.B., Martins, J.T., Zhou, L., 2010. more authors) (2010) Contextual Sensitivity in
Grounded Theory: The Role of Pilot Studies. The Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods 8, 73–84.
440
441
Paquet, P.C., 2010. Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: Two sides of the same coin? Marine
Ecology View project Recovery efforts for Southern Resident killer whales View project.
442
443
444
445
446
Pohlin, F., Hofmeyr, M., Hooijberg, E.H., Blackhurst, D., Reuben, M., Cooper, D., Meyer, L.C.R.,
2020. CHALLENGES TO ANIMAL WELFARE ASSOCIATED WITH CAPTURE AND
LONG ROAD TRANSPORT IN BOMA-ADAPTED BLACK (DICEROS BICORNIS) AND
SEMI-CAPTIVE WHITE (CERATOTHERIUM SIMUM) RHINOCEROSES. Journal of
Wildlife Diseases 56, 294–305. https://doi.org/10.7589/2019-02-045
447
448
449
Proulx, G., Cattet, M., Serfass, T.L., Baker, S.E., 2020. Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to
Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity. Animals 2020, Vol. 10, Page
1262 10, 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/ANI10081262
450
451
452
Raquel, D., Fernandes, N., Lurdes, M. de, Pinto, R., 2019. Veterinarian’s Role in Conservation
Medicine and Animal Welfare. Veterinary Anatomy and Physiology.
https://doi.org/10.5772/INTECHOPEN.84173
453
454
Smiciklas, M., 2012. Infographics Using Pictures to Communicate and Connect with Your
Audiences.
455
Soulé, M.E., 1985. What Is Conservation Biology? 35, 727–734.
456
Svendsen, L.P., Larsen, E.M., 2015. Marius the Giraffe. https://doi.org/10.2/JQUERY.MIN.JS
457
458
Villalobos, A.E., 2011. Quality-of-life Assessment Techniques for Veterinarians. Veterinary Clinics:
Small Animal Practice 41, 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CVSM.2011.03.013
459
460
Highlights
461
•
Desire for collaboration between the disciplines of wildlife conservation and animal welfare exist
462
•
Changes to animal welfare standards need to be made to further collaboration
463
•
Changes in education and training practices in wildlife conservation are needed to better animal
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
welfare
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
Appendix A
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
Figure 11: Participants answer distributions when asked to state their level of agreement regarding the statement: “There
508
is a lack of agreement between the disciplines of animal welfare and conservation.”
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
Figure 12: Participants answer distributions when asked to state their level of agreement regarding the statement:
“Upholding good animal welfare standards are difficult to manage in conservation work.”
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
Figure 13: Participants answer distributions when asked to state their level of agreement regarding the statement: “Good
animal welfare practices support conservation efforts.”
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
Figure 14: Participants answer distributions when asked to state their level of agreement regarding the statement: “In the context
of rescue and release rehabilitation programmes, negative states of stress to the animal(s) that may compromise the animals533
welfare are necessary to an extent.”
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
Figure 15: Participants answer distributions when asked to state their level of agreement regarding the statement:
541
“The protection of a group/species of animals is more important than the preservation of a few animals welfare of the
same species.”
542
543
544
545
546
547
Figure 16: Participants answer distributions when asked to state their level of agreement regarding the statement:
“There is a need to change animal welfare standards.”
548
549
550
551
552
553
Figure 17: Participants answer distributions when asked to state their level of agreement regarding the statement:
“Changes in education and training practices are needed in conservation to better animal welfare.”
554
Faciliator SAGE-HDR form
Student declaration for undergraduate research project
555
556
557
Blank survey
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693