Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41976017›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026

Up to Standard? A Longitudinal Analysis of Regulatory Compliance in British Zoos.

Chris Lewis, Frankie Osuch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 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

2 authors.

Chris LewisBorn Free Foundation, Frazer House, 14 Carfax, West Sussex RH12 1ER, UK.ORCID 0009-0003-6605-7931
Frankie OsuchBorn Free Foundation, Frazer House, 14 Carfax, West Sussex RH12 1ER, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We analysed the formal inspection reports of 108 licensed British zoos covering three consecutive formal inspections, equivalent to a licensing period, under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (ZLA). We examined the compliance of zoos against animal welfare standards, animal escape protocols and engagement in conservation measures, as well as the effects of licence type, zoo association membership, and collection type. Of the 324 inspection reports analysed, 59 (18%) reported that the zoo had passed every assessed question. Failure to undertake the necessary number of escape drills was the most reported area of non-compliance in 134 (41%) of the reports. Across a total of 15,876 welfare assessment criteria, 14,067 (89%) were scored as compliant, but only 83 inspection reports (26%) recorded that the zoo had met all welfare standards. Zoos were commonly found to fall into one of three classes, which predicted their probability of participating in each of the five conservation measures within the ZLA. Farm parks were identified as the collection type performing least well across inspection categories. With British zoos being required to meet new standards from May 2027, we propose a number of changes which could aid inspection consistency and legislative enforcement and drive improvements.

Indexed as

animal welfareex situ conservationzoo conservationzoo inspectionZoo Licensing Actzooszoo welfare

Identifiers

PMID41976017
PMCPMC13071974

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.