









































Type of the Paper (Article


 

  

 

 
Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 http://clujveterinaryjournal.ro 

Article 

Welfare assessment of the sheltered dogs using behavioral in-
dicators 
Anamaria Blaga Petrean1,*, Liviu Bogdan1, Ioana-Diana Câmpean, Silvana Popescu1 

1 University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj Napoca, Faculty of Veterinary Med-
icine, 3-5 Calea Mănăștur, 400372, Cluj-Napoca, Romania 

* Correspondence: anamaria.petrean@usamvcluj.ro 

 
Abstract: The aim of this work was to evaluate the welfare of sheltered dogs using behavioral indicators that indicate negative and 

positive emotional states (provoked and unprovoked behavior). The behavior of the selected animals was evaluated by direct 

observation of the indicators. The data collected was used for computing a life quality score (LQ). Forty-three behavioral indicators 

(23 negative indicators and 20 positive indicators) were identified and analyzed in 20 dogs housed for more than two years in the 

shelter. Six negative indicators (tail chasing, circling, escape attempt, chewing bars, coprophagy and lifting a front leg) were not 

identified in any of the 20 evaluated dogs. An average LQ score of 0.115 was obtained, with values between -0.35 and 0.4. The results 

showed that 55% of the assessed dogs had higher LQ scores than the mean value. Canine behavior can be assessed within a reasonable 

amount of  time by recording the presence or absence of certain behavioral indicators. These recordings can then be processed to 

obtain a quality of life score for each animal. 

Keywords: behavioral indicators, dog, life quality score, shelter. 
 

  
1. Introduction 

Dogs are beloved companion animals throughout the world, but millions of them 
end up in the care of an animal shelter or rescue organization each year [1]. Divers re-
search have identified that the environment offered by the shelter can have negative ef-
fects on the health and well-being of dogs, especially on those who have to live for a long 
period of time [2 - 6]. 

In many animal welfare programs, the focus is usually on stress and negative 
emotional states [3, 7]. However, we must take into account that a complete evaluation 
must also capture positive emotional states [3, 8]. Several studies have presented certain 
stressful elements for dogs in shelters: lack of social interaction, little exercise, minimal 
control over their environment, unpredictable noise levels, and caretaking routines can 
make living in a shelter stressful to dogs [9, 10, 11]. In a stressful situation, the individual 
fails to cope and adapt, endangering the well-being of the animal [12]. Welfare assessment 
in shelter dogs is a very current topic and highly debated both in the mass media and in 
the veterinary medical world. This is due to the difficulty of defining certain indicators, 
but also to the complexity of the systems involved and the adaptation skills of individual 
dogs [13].  

 
 

Received: 21.09.2023 

Accepted: 30.09.2023 

Published:20.10.2023 

DOI: 10.52331/cvj.v28i2.52 

 

 

 

 

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. 

Submitted for possible open access 

publication under the terms and 

conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses

/by/4.0/). 



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 2 of 7 
 

Welfare assessment of dogs is based on the use of the ethogram. Most ethograms were created for a 
specific environment or research area. Thus, based on the ethogram, a series of tools have been validated, 
which can be generally used in a variety of populations [5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. 

An ethogram is a list or catalogue of species-specific behaviors. The behaviors are defined and then 
organized into general categories such as locomotion, resting, playing, change in posture, and stereotypy or 
repetitive behaviors, of which circling, pacing, whirling, and wall-bouncing are just a few examples. In gen-
eral, each behavior is recorded along with its frequency and duration in a specific period of time. Once the 
observation period has ended, the behavior scores are calculated and an assessment is completed [1]. The 
aim of this work was to evaluate the welfare of sheltered dogs using behavioral indicators that 
indicate negative and positive emotional states (provoked and unprovoked behavior). 

 
 
2. Materials and Methods 

 
The study was carried out in a private dog shelter owned by an animal protection association (non-

governmental organization) from Cluj county. Animals selected for evaluation had been in the shelter for 
more than 2 years and at the time of the study had no documented health problems, no ocular discharge, 
lameness or wounds.  

The behavior of the selected animals was evaluated by direct observation based on behavioral 
indicators indicating negative and positive emotional states (Table 1, Table 2).  

The behavioral characteristics were recorded using a binary system 1/0, where 1 has meant the 
occurrence of a given behavior and 0 has meant its absence, in a given time period, during the assessment 
that was done [14, 20]. The ethogram used, originally proposed by [14] was adapted to the conditions present 
in our study. Those characteristics that could not be observed, either due to the design of the shelter or for 
other objective reasons, were excluded. 

The first evaluation method involved videotaping the experiment so that the interaction with the 
animals could be reviewed later. The purpose of this approach was to increase the precision with which the 
elements in the ethogram were recorded and to correct any elements possibly omitted by the assessor. This 
method helped to record the part of unprovoked behavior and the initial interaction between the assessor 
and the animals. The written evaluation was based on the ethogram. Printed copies were used in the form 
of a table, which contained the behavioral manifestations to be followed and the names of the dogs to be 
evaluated. The results were then processed in Microsoft Excel. 

The second evaluation was carried out as follows: (1) evaluation of unprovoked behavior and (2) 
evaluation of provoked behavior.  

In the first stage, the evaluator positioned himself 2-2.5 m away from the corner of the box, without 
trying to interact with the animals in any way. The animals were observed for 3 minutes. Eye contact with 
the dogs, sudden movements or direct addressing of the animal with commands was avoided during this 
stage. Unprovoked behavior was recorded by going through the elements of the ethogram and marking with 
1 the presence of a certain behavior manifestation and with 0 its absence. 

For the evaluation of the provoked behavior the evaluator went to the box and brought the hand close 
to the fence to allow the dog to know the evaluator. The evaluator then entered the pen and assumed a non-
threatening position, crouching next to the fence, allowing the dog to approach. This stage also lasted for 3 
minutes. Shy dogs were not called and no attempt was performed to approach them. The results of the 
ethogram were used to calculate a Life Quality score (LQ score) according to the method proposed by Kiddie 
and Collins [14, 15]. 

 



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 3 of 7 
 

Table 1. Description and prevalence of negative behavioral indicators 

Indicators of negative emotional state, unprovoked behavior 
No. 

dogs 

% 

dogs 

Repeatedly pacing in the 

pen 
Dog repeatedly (>3 times) paces around kennel in a fixed route 9 45 

Repeatedly jumping on 

the kennel wall 

Dog repeatedly (>3 times) jumps up kennel wall from one side to 

another 
1 5 

Tail chasing Dog chases its tail repeatedly (>3 times) 0 0 

Circling Dog repeatedly walks around in small circle (>3 times) 0 0 

Repeatedly display 

playing position 
Dog repeatedly displays the play bow posture (>3 times) 1 5 

Excessive drinking Dog drinks large volumes of water, in excess of what is normal 0 0 

Panting 
Dog pants for reasons unrelated to physical exertion or warm 

ambient temperature (only record if temperature < 25 0C) 
9 45 

Apathy The dog is withdrawn and does not respond to commands 1 5 

Escape attempt 
Dog attempts to escape kennel in a forceful manner whenever the 

kennel door is opened 
0 0 

Hiding 
Dog is obscured from view of kennel staff, behind its bed or other 

kennel furniture for prolonged periods when not asleep (>2mins) 
2 10 

Chewing bars Dog repeatedly chews and bites at the bars of the kennel (>20 secs) 0 0 

Low posture Tail is lowered, ears are back and legs are bent 4 20 

Coprophagy  Did the dog eat its own or another dog’s faeces? 0 0 

Lifting a front leg A forepaw is lifted off the ground and held there 0 0 

Standing 
Positioned with four feet in contact with ground and legs almost or 

fully extended 
13 65 

Sniffing a surface/nose on 

a surface 

The nose is held close to or touching a surface, and/or sniffing the 

surface 
2 10 

Whining High pitched vocalisation 1 5 

Aggressiveness toward 

other dogs 
Any lip lifting, growling, snapping, or biting 2 10 

Startling 
Legs flex briefly, body and head quickly, briefly move back, usually 

in response to a sudden noise, or dog quickly moves backwards  
6 30 

Box walking without 

exploring environment 
Travels forward without obviously investigating its environment 2 10 

Indicators of negative emotional state, provoked behavior 

Oral behaviors, abnormal 

movements 

Includes tongue out; tip of tongue briefly extended; snout licking; lip 

licking; swallowing, lip smacking 
10 50 

Ambivalent posture 

A crouched body posture +a position that is higher than the breed-

specific position; or a high body posture + by a position of the tail that 

is below normal 

9 45 

Aggressiveness Any lip lifting, growling, snapping, or biting 1 5 

 



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 4 of 7 
 

Table 2. Description and prevalence of positive behavioral indicators 

Indicators of positive emotional state, unprovoked behavior 
No. 

dogs 

% 

dogs 

High level of activity Increased levels of any locomotion or movement 6 30 

Grooming The dog grooms itself: scratched/washed/stretched 1 5 

Alert  
Generally inactive but with eyes open, and head and ears moving, 

can be lying down, sitting or standing 
16 80 

Scanning the 

environment 
Eyes continuously move to view the environment 19 95 

Exploring environment Walks with nose close to surfaces or sniffing objects 5 25 

Adopting playing 

position 
Forequarters are lowered to the ground, with rump raised 1 5 

Ears up Ears held forward 12 60 

High body position 

 Breed specific posture shown by dogs under neutral conditions, but 

with a higher tail or head elevated and ears forwards, or dog standing 

extremely erect 

10 50 

Spending time in the 

front part of the box 
Time spent in the half of the kennel closest to the external wall/door 13 65 

Grunting Isolated intense expiration (breathing out) 3 15 

Laying down Most of body in contact with ground 10 50 

Playing with objects 

Any vigorous or galloping gaited behaviour directed towards a toy 

or other object, including chewing, biting, shaking it from side to side, 

batting it with a paw 

0 0 

Playing with other dogs 

Leaps onto another dog, with body relaxed, stands on hind legs and 

paws at other dog, places mouth around muzzle, head, neck, or legs 

of other dog with little pressure, pats another dog with a forepaw, 

lifting both front paws off the ground rapidly to bounce up and 

down, done in front of and orientated towards another dog 

6 30 

Licking other dogs’ face  The dog licks the muzzle of its kennelmate 0 0 

Tail wagging Repetitive wagging movements of the tail 12 60 

Shaking Dog shakes its whole body briefly as if drying itself 0 0 

Indicators of positive emotional state, provoked behavior 

Tail wagging Repetitive wagging movements of the tail 13 65 

Laying down Most of body in contact with ground 0 0 

Initiating physical 

contact 
Dog starts an interaction with the assessor or kennelmate 13 65 

Shaking Dog shakes its whole body briefly as if drying itself 1 5 

 
 
 
 
 



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 5 of 7 
 

3. Results and discussion 
Regarding the 43 indicators analysed (23 negative indicators and 20 positive indicators), six negative 

indicators (tail chasing, circling, escape attempt, chewing bars, coprophagy and lifting a front leg) were not 
identified in any of the 20 evaluated dogs (Table1, Table 2.).  

These indicators were associated in previous studies with high levels of stress or precarious housing 
conditions [21, 22]. Two of the indicators, namely: tail chasing and circling are considered stereotypic behav-
ioral disorders [23]. Their absence in this study may suggest that the animals are housed in conditions that 
do not cause the appearance of certain behavioral stereotypes. Also, the lack of these manifestations may 
suggest that the management practices applied within the shelter have a beneficial effect in preventing neg-
ative behaviors that are associated with stress. In our study, the housing conditions were adequate and in 
conformity with the legal regulations in force. In addition, the boxes were not overcrowded. In some situa-
tions, the dogs can be housed in precarious conditions, overcrowded boxes and they can have limited contact 
with humans [24]. In addition, for some dogs it is possible to be exposed to several traumatic situations, 
abuse and neglect [25].  

Based on the results obtained in the evaluation of the dogs' behavior, a LQ score was calcula-
ted for each animal. Thus, an average LQ score of 0.115 was obtained, with values between -0.35 
and 0.4. The analysis of the results showed that 55% of the assessed dogs had higher LQ scores 
than the mean value. Nine animals (D2, D4, D6, D7, D10, D12, D15, D16, D17) had negative scores. 
The maximum score was recorded for D8 (Figure 1). 

 

 
Figure 1.The LQ score obtained by each dog at the evaluation 

 
The maximum percentage of positive indicators (65%) observed was recorded by D14, and the 

maximum percentage of negative indicators (40%) by dogs D15 and D16. The minimum 
percentage of positive indicators (10%) was observed in animals D7 and D16, and the minimum 
percentage of negative indicators (0%) was observed in D3. 

The average percentage of positive indicators was 29.25%, more than half of the dogs (55%) 
exceeding this value. The average percentage of negative indicators was 19.75%, nine of the 
animals (45%) evaluated registering a lower percentage (Figure 2).  

 
 

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D1
0

D1
1

D1
2

D1
3

D1
4

D1
5

D1
6

D1
7

D1
8

D1
9

D2
0

LQ
 sc

or
e

Number of dogs



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 6 of 7 
 

 
Figure 2. Proportion of positive and negatives indicators per animal 

 
In other studies [14, 15, 20] a percentage of 2% or 30% negative LQ scores were reported 

compared to 45% obtained in this study.These results suggest a higher number of behavioral 
disorders in the dogs evaluated in our research. The lower scores obtained in our study could 
indicate the presence of chronic stress in the dogs or it could be the expression of possible traumas 
experienced by the animal before entering in the shelter. The dogs in a shelter can be exposed to 
chronic stress, because several stress factors such as social isolation, changes of the environment, 
excessive noises, physical restrictions [26, 27].   

 
4.Conclusions 
 
Canine behavior can be assessed within a reasonable time frame by recording the presence or 

absence of certain behavioral indicators. These recordings can then be processed to obtain a quality 
of life score for each animal. The quality of life score (QL) is a parameter that can be used to monitor 
the evolution of the same animal over time, and can also be used to compare the evolution of 
groups of animals. Additional studies such as the application of socialization programs are needed 
to gain more knowledge on the behavior of shelter dogs. This aspect is very important especially 
for animals in shelters that are subjected to a higher level of stress. 

 
 

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.B.P., S.P.; methodology, A.B.P., S.P., L.B.; software, S.P.; validation, A.B.P., 
S.P. and I.D.C.; formal analysis, S.P.; investigation, A.B.P. and I.D.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.P. and 
S.P.; writing—review and editing, A.B.P., S.P. and I.D.C.; supervision, S.P. and L.B. All authors have read and agreed to 
the published version of the manuscript. 

Funding: This research received no external funding.  

 
 
 
 
 

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D1
0

D1
1

D1
2

D1
3

D1
4

D1
5

D1
6

D1
7

D1
8

D1
9

D2
0

In
di

ca
to

rs
 (%

)

Number of dogs

positive indicators negative indicators



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 7 of 7 
 

References 
1. Tennille, K.L., Slater, M.R.; Moberly, H.K; Budke, C.M. Welfare and quality of life assessments for shelter dogs: A scoping 

review, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2021, Volume 244, 105490 
2. Wells, D.L. A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs, Canis familiaris, Applied Animal Behavior Science 2004, 85, 

307–317 
3. Villa, P.D.; Barnard, S.; Di Fede, E.; Podaliri, M.; Candeloro, L.; Di Nardo, A.; Siracusa, C.; Serpell, J.A. Behavioural and physi-

ological responses of shelter dogs to long-term confinement. Veter. Ital. 2013 49, 231–241 
4. Hewison, L.F.; Wright, H.F.; Zulch, H.E.; Ellis, S.L.H. Short term consequences of preventing visitor access to kennels on noise 

and the behaviour and physiology of dogs housed in a rescue shelter, Physiology & Behavior 2014, Volume 133, 1-7 
5. Barnard, S.; Pedernera, C.; Candeloro, L.; Ferri, N.; Velarde, A.; Villa, P.D. Development of a new welfare assessment protocol 

for practical application in long-term dog shelters. Vet Rec. 2016,178, 18 
6. Berteselli, G.V.; Arena, L.; Candeloro, L.; Villa, P.D.; De Massis, F. Interobserver agreement and sensitivity to climatic conditions 

in sheltered dogs' welfare evaluation performed with welfare assessment protocol (Shelter Quality protocol). Journal of Veteri-
nary Behavior 2019, Volume 29, 45-52 

7. Yeates, J.W.; Main, D.C.J. Assessment of positive welfare: A review. The Veterinary Journal 2008, Volume 175, Issue 3, 293-300 
8. Righi, C.; Menchetti, L.; Orlandi, R.; Moscati, L.; Mancini, S.; Diverio, S. Welfare Assessment in Shelter Dogs by Using Physio-

logical and Immunological Parameters. Animals (Basel) 2019, 11; 9(6):340 
9. Beerda, B.; Schildert, M.B.H.; van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M.; de Vries, H.W.; Moll, J.A. Behavioural and Hormonal Indicators of endur-

ing environmental stress in dogs. Anim. Welf. 2000, 9, 49–62 
10. Taylor, K.D.; Mills, D.S. The effect of the kennel environment on canine welfare: A critical review of experimental studies. Anim. 

Welf. 2007,16, 435–447 
11. Titulaer, M.; Blackwell, E.J.; Mendl, M.; Casey, R.A. Cross sectional study comparing behavioural, cognitive and physiological 

indicators of welfare between short and long term kenneled domestic dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 147, 149–158 
12. Madden, K.S.; Felten, D.L. Experimental basis for neural-immune interactions. Physiol. Rev. 1995, 75, 77–106 
13. Protopopova, A. Effects of sheltering on physiology, immune function, behavior, and the welfare of dogs. Physiol. Behav. 2016, 

159, 95–103 
14. Kiddie, J.L.; Collins, L.M. Development and validation of a quality of life assessment tool for use in kennelled dogs (Canis 

familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2014,158, 457–468 
15. Kiddie, J.L.; Collins, L.M. Identifying environmental and management factors that may be associated with the quality of life of 

kennelled dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2015, 167, 43–55 
16. Arena, L.; Wemelsfelder, F.; Messori, S.; Ferri, N.; Barnard, S. Application of Free Choice Profiling to assess the emotional state 

of dogs housed in shelter environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2017, Volume 195, Pages 72-79 
17. Arena, L.; Berteselli, G.; Lombardo, F.; Candeloro, L.; Villa, P.; Massis, F. Application of a welfare assessment tool (Shelter 

Quality Protocol) in 64 Italian long-term dogs’ shelters: Welfare hazard analysis. Animal Welfare 2019, 28(3), 353-363 
18. Menchetti, L.; Righi, C.; Guelfi, G.; Enas, C.; Moscati, L.; Mancini, S.; Diverio, S. Multi-Operator Qualitative Behavioural Assess-

ment for dogs entering the shelter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2019, Volume 213, 107-116 
19. Walker, J.K.; Dale, A.R.; D’Eath, R.B.; Wemelsfelder, F. Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of dogs in the shelter and home 

environment and relationship with quantitative behaviour assessment and physiological responses. Applied Animal Behaviour 
Science 2016, Volume 184, 97-108 

20. Popescu, S.; Borda, C.; El Mahdy, C.; Lazar, E.A.; Blaga Petrean, A.; Câmpean, I.D.; Spinu, M. The Effect of a Social Enrichment 
Programme on the Behaviour of Dogs from a Private Shelter, Bulletin UASVM Veterinary Medicine 2018, 75(2),  222-230 

21. Beerda, B.; Schilder, M.B.H.; Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M.; Vries, H.W.; Mol, J.A. Chronic stress in dogs subjected to social and spatial 
restriction: behavioral responses. Physiology & Behavior 1999, 66, 233–242 

22. Stephen, J.M.; Ledger, R.A. An audit of behavioral indicators of poor welfare in kenneled dogs in the United Kingdom. Journal 
of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2005, 8, 79–95 

23. Hecht, J.; Horowitz, A. Introduction to dog behavior. In: Animal behavior for shelter veterinarians and staff. John Wiley & Sons, 
Ames, 2015 pp. 5-24 

24. Barrera, G.; Jakovcevic, A.; Bentosela, M. Calidad de vida de perros alojados en refugios: intervenciones para mejorar su bie-
nestar. Suma Psicológica 2008, 15, 337-354 

25. De Palma, C.; Viggiano, E.; Barillari, E.; Palme, R.; Dufour, A.B.; Fantini, C.; Natoli, E. Evaluating the temperament in shelter 
dogs. Behavior 2005, 142, 1307–1328 

26. Hennessy, M.B.; Williams, M.; Mellott, C.; Douglas, C. Plasma cortisol levels of dogs at a county animal shelter, Physiology & 
Behaviour 1997, 62, 485-490 

27. Tuber, D.; Miller, D.; Caris, K.; Halter, R.; Linden, F.; Hennessy, M. Dogs in animal shelters: problems, suggestions and needed 
expertise. Psychological Science 1999, 10, 379-386 
 


	1. Introduction
	3. Results and discussion
	References

