Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36877684›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Ethical reasoning and participatory approach towards achieving regulatory processes for animal-visitor interactions (AVIs) in South Africa.

Alessia Muzzo, Ilaria Pollastri, Pierfrancesco Biasetti, Gregory Vogt, Raoul Manenti, Barbara de Mori

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

6 authors.

Alessia MuzzoDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padova, Legnaro, Padova, Italy.
Ilaria PollastriDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padova, Legnaro, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8287-3547
Pierfrancesco BiasettiEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation, and Animal Welfare, University of Padova, Legnaro, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4309-4655
Gregory VogtEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation, and Animal Welfare, University of Padova, Legnaro, Padova, Italy.
Raoul ManentiDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Milano, Italy.
Barbara de MoriDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padova, Legnaro, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7397-1797

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

South Africa's wide range of animal facilities offers many different types of Animal-Visitor Interactions, wild animal encounters where animals and visitors come closer than in normal circumstances. The aim of this study was to provide a map of the ethically relevant aspects involved in AVIs in South Africa as a first step towards regulating these activities. A participative approach based on the ethical matrix, a tool which organizes the ethical standings of the stakeholders by three bearing ethical principles (wellbeing, autonomy, fairness), was applied. The matrix was populated through a top-down approach and refined by engaging stakeholders in a workshop and two online self-administrated surveys. The outcome is a map of the value demands concerning Animal Visitor Interactions. This map shows how the ethical acceptability of AVIs is linked to different relevant issues like animal welfare, education, biodiversity conservation, sustainability, human competency, facility mission, impact on scientific research and socio-economic outcomes. In addition, results highlighted the importance of cooperation among stakeholders and suggested that attention for animal welfare can inform decision making and inspire a multidisciplinary approach in implementing a regulatory frame for South African wildlife facilities.

Indexed as

Animals, WildAnimal WelfareAnimalsBiodiversityHumansSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID36877684
PMCPMC9987795

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.