Table 2.

Strengths and limitations of available welfare assessment tools.

Tool	Strengths	Limitations or Challenges (focused on tourist camps)
ZooMonitor	Continuously updated across platforms, including iOS, Android, and Windows devices Flexible for in-person observation or CCTV footage Allows 24/7 systematic behavioral and social interaction monitoring	Relies on behavioral observations that may be too time-consuming for mahouts Mahouts may have limited knowledge of elephant biology and behavior for proper assessment Integration of husbandry records required for holistic welfare assessment requires expertise Challenges in low-budget venues and non-English-speaking regions
WelfareTrak	Quantitative scoring and flagging systems for setting standards and tracking alterations over time play a crucial role	Integration of resource-based measures is necessary for holistic assessment and may be lacking The subjective nature of mahout assessments may introduce bias
Zoological Information Management System (ZIMS) for Care and Welfare	Holistic approach to welfare assessment using animal and resource-based measures Facilitates global sharing of information and data storage Allows users to specify parameters and select grading scales	Challenges in low-budget venues and non-English-speaking regions Constantly updating information in ZIMS is logistically challenging Implementing ZIMS might reveal welfare issues and require costly improvements that conflict with a camp’s profit-oriented approach, making them hesitant to adopt the system Public disclosure of welfare records may lead to negative publicity affecting the reputation and business of tourist venues
Welfare Discussion Tool (WDT)	Holistic approach to welfare assessment using animal and resource-based measures Inter-rater reliability across three raters Regular post-assessment discussion between raters promotes positive management changes	Endocrinological assessment can be challenging Assessment by three raters regularly is time and resource-intensive for low-budget tourist venues
Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (AWAG)	Holistic approach to welfare assessment using animal and resource-based measures Numerical and visual representation allows welfare changes over time	Scores may not correspond with behavioral observation data, relying heavily on mahout assessments Difficult to access software and requires expertise to present the data in the radar chart
Animal Welfare Risk Assessment Process (AWRAP)	Includes benchmark scores for welfare comparisons Holistic approach to welfare assessment using animal and resource-based measures	Focuses only on institutional-level assessment Predominantly focused on resource-based measures (75%) leading to welfare risk assessment rather than overall welfare assessment Reliance on mahout ratings may introduce bias and subjectivity Measures like safety from predators might not be relevant in the context of tourist camp elephants
Ackonc-Animal Welfare Assessment (AWA)	Holistic approach to welfare assessment using animal and resource-based measures Reliable and valid measures are used	Reliance on mahout ratings may introduce bias and subjectivity Limited evidence on widespread adoption and validation
Wild Welfare Animal Welfare Collection Assessment	Holistic approach to welfare assessment using animal and resource-based measures Includes “non-negotiables” and a pre-intervention audit survey to identify common welfare concerns	Implementation might conflict with tourist venues engaging in practices against Wild Welfare’s “non-negotiables.”
Elephant Behavioral Welfare Assessment Tool (EBWAT)	Use of reliable and valid measures Specific to captive elephants	No evidence of widespread adoption and validation of non-zoological institutions Lacks resource-based measures essential for risk assessment across captive institutions Not intended to compare the welfare of elephants across facilities Feasibility, reliability, and validity tested in UK zoos and may not apply to larger sample sizes or different contexts Relying on 24-h monitoring is impractical in tourist camps
Elephant Welfare Initiative (EWI)	Holistic approach to welfare assessment using animal and resource-based measures Provides real-time analysis at individual and institutional levels Allows benchmarking and monitoring over time	Labor and time-intensive input requirements May require technical expertise for effective implementation
Captive Elephant Welfare Index	Utilizes validated measures	Focuses only on institutional-level assessment
World Animal Protection (WAP) Assessment	Specific focus on tourist camps	Assumption and subjective criteria may influence scoring Lacks integral components such as reliable and valid measures, and recent advances in animal welfare Focuses only on institutional-level assessment
Association of British Travel Agent (ABTA) Animal Welfare Guidelines	Specific to non-zoological institutions such as tourist camps	Lacks integral components such as reliable and valid measures, welfare grading system, and recent advances in animal welfare
Guidelines on the Usage of Captive Elephants in Malaysia	Specific to non-zoological institutions including tourist camps in Malaysia	Lacks integral components such as reliable and valid measures, welfare grading system, and recent advances in animal welfare