scholarly journals The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1870 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Mellor ◽  
Ngaio J. Beausoleil ◽  
Katherine E. Littlewood ◽  
Andrew N. McLean ◽  
Paul D. McGreevy ◽  
...  

Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal’s mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body’s internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects, and these affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body’s internal stability. As each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal, the affects associated with them are collectively referred to as “survival-critical affects”. In contrast, Domain 4, now named Behavioural Interactions, focusses on evidence of animals consciously seeking specific goals when interacting behaviourally with (1) the environment, (2) other non-human animals and (3) as a new feature of the Model outlined here, humans. The associated affects, evaluated via Domain 5, are mainly generated by brain processing of sensory inputs elicited by external stimuli. The success of the animals’ behavioural attempts to achieve their chosen goals is reflected in whether the associated affects are negative or positive. Collectively referred to as “situation-related affects”, these outcomes are understood to contribute to animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. These observations reveal a key distinction between the way survival-critical and situation-related affects influence animals’ aligned behaviours. The former mainly reflect compelling motivations to engage in genetically embedded behavioural responses, whereas the latter mainly involve conscious behavioural choices which are the hallmarks of agency. Finally, numerous examples of human–animal interactions and their attendant affects are described, and the qualitative grading of interactions that generate negative or positive affect is also illustrated.

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Patel ◽  
K Whitehouse-Tedd ◽  
SJ Ward

Scientific studies of human-animal interactions (HAIs) and how these develop into human-animal relationships (HARs) now represent some of the most significant contributions to animal welfare science. However, due to the current definition of HAR, studies have only been able to measure HAIs and infer its impact on HARs and animal welfare. Here, we redefine HARs as a series of repeated HAIs between two individuals known to each other, the nature of which is influenced by their historical HAIs and where consideration to the content, quality and the pattern of the interactions is also vital. With a new definition, it is now feasible to empirically measure HARs, however, first, it is important to evaluate current methods utilised in animal industries to allow standardisation across HAR research in zoos. Here, we review the current methods that have been used to assess HAIs in animals and determine their overall suitability for measuring HARs and their use in a zoo environment. Literature searches were conducted using the search terms 'human-animal' AND 'interaction', 'human-animal' AND 'relationship', 'human-animal' AND 'bond'. Subsequently, 'zoo', 'companion', 'agriculture', 'laboratory' and 'wild' were added to each combination yielding five potential methods to evaluate. These methods were assessed according to a panel of indicators including reliability, robustness, practical application and feasibility for use in a zoo environment. Results indicated that the methods utilising 'latency', 'qualitative behaviour assessment' and the 'voluntary approach test' were potentially viable to assess HARs in a zoo environment and could subsequently contribute to the assessment of welfare implications of these HARs for the animals involved. These methods now require empirical testing and comparisons within a zoo environment.


Anthrozoology ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 81-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Ward ◽  
Sally Sherwen

With the number of zoos increasing worldwide, there are now growing opportunities for human–animal interactions (HAIs) in zoos. HAIs occur throughout the day, every day, with variations in their duration, quality and dyadic components (familiar or unfamiliar humans). Research has shown that HAIs can affect the development of positive, negative and neutral human–animal relationships (HARs), which in turn can have short- and long-term implications on the animals’ behaviour, physiology and welfare. For example, positive HAIs can lead to positive HARs between specific keeper–animal dyads, and in some cases can lead to positive association of visitors. This area of research is still in its infancy yet deemed to be one of the most influential aspects of zoo animal welfare science. This chapter highlights current trends in HAR research and areas for future developments for both familiar and unfamiliar humans and the animals that they encounter in various contexts.


1992 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Sandøe ◽  
H B Simonsen

To be able to assess animal welfare the researcher must presuppose a number of background assumptions that cannot be tested by means of ordinary empirical data collection. In order to substantiate these assumptions two sorts of inferences have to be relied upon, which the authors designate by the terms 'analogies' and 'homologies'. Analogies are evaluative, philosophical reflections by means of which it is made clear what provisions or states constitute the welfare of humans and other animals. By means of analogies it may, for example be argued that animal welfare consists of subjective experiences such as pain, boredom, pleasure and expectation. Also by means of analogies the relative 'weight' of these states can be decided. Homologies are part of theoretical science. They serve to clarify how the relevant experiences are linked to measurable anatomical physiological and behavioural parameters.An account is given of the steps which have to be taken to give a full answer to a question concerning the welfare of animals. In the account only farm animals are mentioned, but the same steps, of course, also have to be taken to answer questions concerning the welfare of other kinds of animals be they companion, laboratory, zoo or wild. Eight steps are described, and it is argued that both analogies and homologies are needed at very fundamental levels. Therefore, if animal welfare science is to provide relevant, rational and reliable answers to questions concerning animal welfare, it must be an interdisciplinary inquiry involving philosophical reflections and theoretical biology.


Author(s):  
David Herman

This chapter uses a variety of example narratives to consider how cultures’ ways of orienting to animals (i.e., cultural ontologies) translate into, and depend for their support on, constellations of “discourse domains.” This technical term refers to the arenas of conduct in which strategies for negotiating self-other relationships—including human-animal relationships—take shape. At issue are frameworks for activity that determine what kinds of subjective experiences it is appropriate and warranted to attribute to others, nonhuman as well as human. The chapter draws on these ideas to reframe debates organized around a polarity between legible and illegible animal minds, commonly associated with fiction and nonfiction, respectively. To work past this polarity, the chapter outlines techniques for documenting and analyzing the attested range of mind-ascribing practices in a given culture or subculture, as they manifest themselves in nonfictional as well as fictional narratives about animals across different discourse domains.


2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. 468-468
Author(s):  
Sharon Kuca ◽  
Lindsey McKinney ◽  
Cia Johnson

Abstract Established in 2001, the Animal Welfare Assessment Contest® (AWJAC®) aims to be an innovative educational tool for enhancing understanding and awareness of welfare issues affecting animals used for human purposes (e.g., research, agriculture, entertainment, companionship). The contest is open to participation by veterinary, undergraduate, and graduate students who may participate as individuals or as part of a team. A limited number of veterinarians are also eligible to compete as non-placing participants. Participation in the contest entails assessment of live and computer-based scenarios encompassing data, photographs, and videos of animals in comparable situations. Students then use the information obtained to rank the welfare of the animals in those situations on the basis of physiologic and behavioral indicators, with attention to facilities and management, and present their analyses orally to expert judges. The species featured change each year of the contest. At the completion of each contest, participants and coaches are asked to anonymously complete a written survey. The quantitative and qualitative results of this survey are used to determine if the contest has achieved its aims and incorporate suggestions for improvement of future contests. The majority of survey respondents from the five contests held between 2014–2018 report they either strongly agree or agree that the AWJAC increased their knowledge of animal welfare science (98%, n = 549) and was an overall valuable experience (99%, n = 547) that they would recommend to their peers (98%, n = 550). Respondents cited networking opportunities and diversity of species featured in the contest as key reasons the contest is valuable. Given these results, the AWJAC is successfully achieving its aims to increase animal welfare knowledge in an innovative way.


Author(s):  
Emily Shoesmith ◽  
Luciana Santos de Assis ◽  
Lion Shahab ◽  
Elena Ratschen ◽  
Paul Toner ◽  
...  

Background: Companion animals may be a positive presence for their owners during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the welfare of a companion animal is strongly influenced by the behaviour of their owners, as well as their physical and social environment. We aimed to investigate the reported changes in companion animal welfare and behaviour and to examine the association between these changes and companion animal owners’ mental health. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of UK residents over 18 years of age was conducted between April and June 2020 (n = 5926). The questionnaire included validated, bespoke items measuring outcomes related to mental health, human-animal bonds and reported changes in animal welfare and behaviour. The final item of the survey invited open-ended free-text responses, allowing participants to describe experiences associated with human-animal relationships during the first UK lockdown phase. Results: Animal owners made up 89.8% of the sample (n = 5323), of whom 67.3% reported changes in their animal’s welfare and behaviour during the first lockdown phase (n = 3583). These reported changes were reduced to a positive (0–7) and negative (0–5) welfare scale, following principal component analysis (PCA) of 17 items. Participants reported more positive changes for cats, whereas more negative changes were reported for dogs. Thematic analysis identified three main themes relating to the positive and negative impact on companion animals of the Covid-19 pandemic. Generalised linear models indicated that companion animal owners with poorer mental health scores pre-lockdown reported fewer negative changes in animal welfare and behaviour. However, companion animal owners with poorer mental health scores since lockdown reported more changes, both positive and negative, in animal welfare and behaviour. Conclusion: Our findings extend previous insights into perceived welfare and behaviour changes on a very limited range of species to a wider a range of companion animals. Owner mental health status has a clear, albeit small, effect on companion animal welfare and behaviour.


2006 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vonne Lund ◽  
Grahame Coleman ◽  
Stefan Gunnarsson ◽  
Michael Calvert Appleby ◽  
Katri Karkinen

animal ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 100103
Author(s):  
F. Pol ◽  
F. Kling-Eveillard ◽  
F. Champigneulle ◽  
E. Fresnay ◽  
M. Ducrocq ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document