Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare:

A Systematic Review
ADMELA JUKAN, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Germany
XAVI MASIP-BRUIN, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Spain
NINA AMLA, National Science Foundation, USA

Animals play a profoundly important and intricate role in our lives today. Dogs have been human companions
for thousands of years, but now they work to assist the disabled, and in combat and search and rescue
situations. Farm animals are a critical part of sustainable agriculture today, and there is increasing consumer
interest in humanely raised livestock, and how it impacts our health and environmental footprint. Wild
animals are threatened with extinction by human induced factors, and shrinking and compromised habitats.
There are many reasons, including societal and economic ones, to explore how new computing technologies
can be used to ensure the welfare of animals in these settings. The goal of this review is to systematically
survey the existing literature in smart computing and sensing technologies for domestic, farm, and wild
animal welfare. We use a broad notion of animal welfare to refer to an assessment of whether animals
are healthy, free of pain and suffering, and positively stimulated in their environment. Smart computing
and sensing is also used in broad terms, to refer to systems that are not isolated but interconnected with
communication networks, and capable of remote data collection, processing, exchange, and analysis. The
findings of this review are expected to motivate future research in computer science and engineering, as well
as contribute to data, information, and communication management for animal welfare.
CCS Concepts: r General and reference → Surveys and overviews;
Additional Key Words and Phrases: Wireless sensor networks, communication networks, cloud computing,
tracking, smart agriculture, health monitoring, animal-computer interface, animal welfare
ACM Reference Format:
Admela Jukan, Xavi Masip-Bruin, and Nina Amla. 2017. Smart computing and sensing technologies for
animal welfare: A systematic review. ACM Comput. Surv. 50, 1, Article 10 (April 2017), 27 pages.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3041960

1. INTRODUCTION
Smart computing and sensing technologies (referred to as smart technologies or smart
systems in the rest of this survey) have become common terms to describe next gener-
ation computing, communication, and sensing technologies and systems, with a broad

The authors thank anonymous referees and the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Sartaj Sahni, for reviews and
comments. We thank Marcel Caria, Francisco Carpio, and Sandeep Singh, for support and discussions in the
early versions of the article. The authors thank Professor Ashwin Gumaste (IIT Bombay), Professor Nicole
Kemper (Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover), and Professor Birgit U. Stetina (Sigmund Freud Universität
Wien) for their advice, feedback, and encouragement. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommen-
dations expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF). This
article is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Rujuta K. Raichura.
Authors’ addresses: A. Jukan, Technische Universität Braunschweig, 11th floor, room 1108, Hans-Sommer-
Str. 66, 38106 Braunschweig; email: [email protected]; X. Masip-Bruin, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunia,
Escola Politècnica Superior d’Enginyeria de Vilanova i la Geltrú, Avda. Vı́ctor Balaguer, s/n, 08800 Vilanova
i la Geltrú, Barcelona, Spain; email: [email protected]; N. Amla, National Science Foundation, Computer &
Information & Science & Engineering (CISE), 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22230; email: [email protected].
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted
without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned
by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request
permissions from [email protected].
2017 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM 0360-0300/2017/04-ART10 $15.00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3041960

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10
10:2 A. Jukan et al.

range of Internet and cloud-based applications and connectivity modi, including com-
bination of various paradigms. The usage of the term smart may vary, but is typically a
networked system connecting physical devices with computing systems for data collec-
tion, processing, exchange, and analysis. Examples of the basic components of smart
systems today are networked devices for wearable computing, wireless and wireline
sensor and next generation cellular networks, energy efficient computing and sensing
systems, and data processing and visualization. These smart technologies are creat-
ing, and expected to continue making, huge societal and economic benefits in many
nontraditional areas.
One of the sectors expected to benefit from the smart computing and technologies
is animal welfare. We use the notion of animal welfare to refer to the basic needs of
an animal, namely, that they are healthy, free of pain, well exercised, and positively
stimulated in their environment. In the case of livestock agriculture, while there is no
United Nation’s declaration on animal welfare aspects in the context of sustainable
development or best practices recommended for responsible investments in agricul-
ture, there is a general agreement that animals are an essential part of sustainable
agriculture, food safety, human health, and environmental protection. Since significant
investments are to be made in new technologies for agriculture, there is no doubt that
the same technologies can be used to monitor and control animal welfare, regionally,
state-wise, and one day, even globally. For instance, the U.S. animal welfare law called
Twenty-Eight Hour Law regulates the maximum length of interstate transportation of
animals raised for food.1 This law can easily be supported within smart transportation
systems today, whereby vehicles are connected to the cloud.
Advanced tracking and monitoring technologies have already been used for pets and
wild animals. Under Article 4 of 1987 European Convention for the Protection of Pet
Animals, pet owners must provide their pets with sufficient food, water, and exercise;
today, the latter can be easily monitored by GPS- and cellular network-based animal
trackers. Furthermore, a new branch of computer science, called Animal-Computer
Interface (ACI) focuses on understanding and improving human-animal communica-
tions and enabling the so-called animal welfare science. For wild animals, on the other
hand, emphasis has been on systems that nonintrusively monitor their behavior and
environmental changes that lead to behavioral and species-specific issues, as well as
coexistence of humans and wild animals, be it through prevention of roadside accidents,
or preventing illegal hunting of endangered species. To record, share, and analyze large
volumes of biomedical data of animals globally, can only be handled by systems deeply
rooted in today’s notion of clouds, high-end computing, and real-time data transmis-
sion. There is growing momentum to continue to explore innovative smart systems for
the welfare of domestic and wild animals, and leverage these developments for farm
animals, all under a joint framework.
The goal of this survey is to review literature on smart technologies designed for the
welfare of domestic, farm, and wild animals. The review provides a categorization of
smart systems implemented or discussed in research communities in the last decade.
While the overall goal of the article is to improve animal welfare, and foster innovations
in computing science and technology, the focus of this survey is strictly on categorizing
related smart technologies, providing the basis for data collection and storage, and
exploring ways of sharing and analyzing this information. The findings in this article
demonstrate that innovative smart technologies appear to be a promising and econom-
ically sustainable option to ensure animal welfare. The challenges and opportunities
discussed show the richness of this space for technology innovation, and wide societal

1 UnitedStates Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library, Text of the Twenty-Eight Hour
Law (transportation of animals), amended 1994.

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:3

benefits, including opportunities to build economically sustainable animal welfare sys-

tems. This review does not go into specific aspects of ethics, animal rights, and laws.
While such policy considerations are out of scope for this survey, relevant stakeholders
may find this survey useful in initiating ethical, economics, or legal discussions on this
topic.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. Section 2 defines the scope of the review,
and summarizes the main criteria used. Section 3 is dedicated to the technologies and
systems for pets, and companion animals, generally referred to as domestic animals.
Section 4 reviews the area of smart animal farming. Section 5 is dedicated to smart sys-
tems for animals in the wild or in confinement in zoos or sanctuaries. Section 6 presents
the main findings from the review and discusses briefly the research opportunities. Sec-
tion 7 concludes the article and provides recommendations for further research.
2. SCOPE AND CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW
Based on standard review methods used in other disciplines [Tranfield et al. 2003;
Chiarini et al. 2013; Kitchenham et al. 2009], we follow three steps: planning, con-
ducting, and reporting the results of the review (the focus of this article). This section
briefly outlines the first two phases, as the rationale for the resulting third phase.
2.1. Planning the Review
This survey uses the definition in Rault et al. [2015a] where the animal welfare subject
was studied from a cross-disciplinary perspective of the animal welfare science and
animal-computer interaction in particular. The part of animal welfare science that is
relevant to this survey is the technology that can produce, process, and use data to
allow research and policy making in the criteria relevant to animal welfare, such as
(i) animals living without pain, (ii) control of species-adequate living environment,
and (iii) positively stimulated activities and social interactions of animals, both with
humans and other animals.
Smart technologies have been the subject of intense research in a number of different
application areas; however, this survey focuses only on smart technologies that involve
animals. We paid attention to the accessibility and reproducibility of the studies con-
ducted, in the context of specific technology or devices used. The survey excludes the
following sources: (i) commercial products and the associated white papers; (ii) opinion,
op-ed, journalistic articles, books and book chapters, position papers; (iii) technologi-
cal innovation of individual components potentially applicable, but outside the area of
animal welfare; (iv) technological studies in the area of anthropomorphism, concerned
with human-centric attribution of animal welfare features; and (v) any technology and
systems built with the main purpose to address issues of animal law, rights, or ethics.
There has been a significant amount of research in robotics and virtual reality ded-
icated to creating animal-like robots to serve in similar roles as live animals. For
instance, robots for herding and monitoring cattle,2 robotic dogs used as service ani-
mals [Lakatos 2016], or as virtual companions for therapeutic purposes [Stetina et al.
2011]. This line of work is not in scope for this review since it does not directly address
animal welfare. Another line of research involves animal-computer interaction work
with invertebrates. This review does not cover these and similar efforts, and includes
only research where live vertebrate animals are considered.
2.2. Conducting the Review
Figure 1 illustrates the reference framework proposed, which we used to conduct the
review. From the application perspective, we focus on four main categories of the work
2 New Scientists (online), Cattle-herding robot Swagbot makes debut on Australian farms, July 2016.

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:4 A. Jukan et al.

Fig. 1. The reference framework proposed to conduct the review.

reviewed: communication,health, monitoring, and environment. Communication refers

to the applications that enable communication between humans and animals. Impor-
tant aspects of communication are capturing the type of data exchanged, and storing
and using this data for analysis and processing. The category Health refers to aspects
of both animal and human health. This could include smart systems to monitor ani-
mal health, as well as technologies that employ animals to assist disabled people or
other therapeutic treatments. Monitoring relates to (remote) monitoring of the ani-
mal behavior. The category Environment relates to monitoring the indoor and outdoor
environment of the animals.
We review three major categories of animals: domestic, farm, and wild. The category
Domestic animals refers to domestic pets, service animals, and working animals. We
define service animals as those trained to help a disabled individual. Working animals
are defined as those trained to help society at large, as in the military or for search
and rescue. In this category, we review the systems intended for use on an individual
animal. The category Farm animals refers to a group of animals raised for the animal
products, and generally housed together in a farming facility. The smart technology
designed here is usually for a group of animals designated for human food production
(dairy or meat) or commercial goods (wool). The category of Wild animals refers to
animals in their natural habitat, or in confinement in zoos or sanctuaries.
The review quantifies the work done in each category, and analysis the smart comput-
ing and sensing systems that enable the relationships between individual subcategories
at the core of our framework. While Figure 1 does not show whether the relationships
between individual categories and subcategories always exist, these relationships are
important. The notable absence of experimental and research papers relating indi-
vidual categories and subcategories may indicate the need for future research in that
space, or that the smart systems connecting specific species and applications are not
deemed important at present.

3. DOMESTIC ANIMALS: ONE AT A TIME

This section focuses on domestic animals, where the distinguishing factor is that they
are treated individually, and not as a group. Following the classification proposed
in Figure 1, we review domestic animals in three main categories of applications:
(A) human-animal communication, (B) tracking, behavioral monitoring, and animal
health, and (C) service and working dogs (Table I). The key system technologies, along
with the example methods used and metrics analyzed, are summarized in Table II.

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
 Table I. Classification of Applications and Data Exchanged in Smart Compute and Sensing Systems for Domestic Animals
Application Papers Data Exchanged Wearable Nonwearable
Pons et al. [2015] human contact exchange,
vibratactile actuators kinetic sensors
Human-animal communication Rault et al. [2015b] location, posture, haptic
mobile computer-pet jacket 3D visuzalization
Lee et al. [2006] interfaces, orientation
Ladha et al. [2013] wireless accelerometer
postures (sitting, standing,
Brugarolas et al. [2013] wireless gyroscope
lying down), sleeping and smart phones
Tracking and Winters et al. [2015a] motion sensor
eating patterns walking, mobile networks
behavior monitoring Valentin et al. [2015] GPS sensors
climbing stairs, sending social network
Lemasson et al. [2013] RFID tags
vibration or audio signals
Winters et al. [2015b] speakers on the harness
heart rate (HR) electrocardiogram (ECG) electrodes
heartrate variability (HRV) photoplethysmogram(PPG) sensors
Animal health Brugarolas et al. [2016] computational node
respiratory rate inertial measurement units (IMU)
vital signs optical fibers and lightguides
Robinson et al. [2014] remote call for help wearable sensors
Human health
Mealin et al. [2015] barking vibrotactile conductivepolymer computational node
(service and working dogs)
Johnston-Wilder et al. [2015] feedback to humans potentiometer sensor
Ribeiro et al. [2008] wearable wireless cameras

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Ferworn et al. [2006] microphone
continuous barking detection,
Search and rescue Komori et al. [2015] speakers robots
posture detection
(working dogs) Ribeiro et al. [2009] GPS wireless networks
animal vital signs detection
Bozkurt et al. [2014] gas sensors
Ferworn et al. [2012] EKG and PPG sensors
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review
10:5
 Table II. Key System Technologies Proposed for Domestic Animals
Key Technology Papers Sample Methods Metrics 10:6
Brugarolas et al. [2013], Ribeiro et al. [2008] Rule-based algorithm
Winters et al. [2015b], Brugarolas et al. [2016] Window match
Ladha et al. [2013], Komori et al. [2015] Clustering
Accelerometry Accuracy
McClune et al. [2014], Ribeiro et al. [2009] Random forest algorithm
Bozkurt et al. [2014], Valentin et al. [2015] Dynamic time warping
Winters et al. [2015a] Segmentation-free analysis approach
Maximum likelihood estimation
Baum-Welch algorithm
Accuracy
Gyroscopes Brugarolas et al. [2013], Valentin et al. [2015] Machine learning
False positives
Dynamic time warping
Segmentation-free analysis approach
Context-aware sensing algorithms Real-time sensing
Mealin et al. [2015], Byrne et al. [2014] Machine learning classification Accuracy
Vibrotactile sensors Bozkurt et al. [2014] Baum-Welch algorithm Latency
Trail and error Confidence
Ferworn et al. [2006, 2012] Video stabilization techniques
Fidelity
Bozkurt et al. [2014], Komori et al. [2015] Visual acuity testing
Video Communication reliability
Golbeck and Neustaedter [2012] High resolution video recording
Egonomics
Tran et al. [2010] Trial and error
Accuracy
Mealin et al. [2015], Ferworn et al. [2006] Masking environmental audio
Communication reliability
Audio Bozkurt et al. [2014] Recording different volume levels
Latency
Golbeck and Neustaedter [2012] Web-based audio
Usability
Robinson et al. [2014], Byrne et al. [2014] Usability
Machine learning
Johnston-Wilder et al. [2015] Behavioral observation
Animal input interface Zeagler et al. [2014] Observational techniques
Cognitive complexity
Field study
Robinson et al. [2015] Design preferences
Accuracy
Mealin et al. [2015], Brugarolas et al. [2016] N-back test
Animal health sensors Bozkurt et al. [2014] Latency
Machine learning
Confidence
Brugarolas et al. [2013], Brugarolas et al. [2016] Low energy operation
Robustness
Bozkurt et al. [2014], Ladha et al. [2013] Waterproof design
Microcontroller/SoC Operational Stability
Komori et al. [2015], Zeagler et al. [2014] Hardware adaptation for canine interface
Real-time video processing
Tran et al. [2010] On-dog video recording
Brugarolas et al. [2013], Ribeiro et al. [2008] Wireless Mesh Ad-hoc operation
Ribeiro et al. [2009], Ferworn et al. [2006] WiFi Latency
Networking Upson [2008], Byrne et al. [2014] Bluetooth Data loss
Lemasson et al. [2013], Brugarolas et al. [2016] Cellular Protocol support
Bozkurt et al. [2014], Komori et al. [2015] GPS Energy consumption
Remote control
Robot’s size
Fast scanning algorithm
Species-appropriate parameters
Avatars, robots Lee et al. [2006], Ferworn et al. [2012] Computer vision algorithm
Visual acuity tests
Background subtraction algorithm
Bark barrel test
3D live image-based rendering algorithm
A. Jukan et al.

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:7

3.1. Human-Animal Communication

The human curiosity for communicating with their animal companions, primarily dogs
and cats, is probably as old as the history of domestic animals. Today’s technology makes
it possible to articulate this communication through a focused and distinctive subfield
of computer science called Animal Computer Interface (ACI) [Mancini 2011]. ACI and
animal welfare are naturally aligned [Rault et al. 2015b], and yields an interesting
and cross-disciplinary collaboration. For instance, it is well established in the ACI
community that the design of interfaces for dogs should involve technology developed
solely for the specific use of human-animal interaction and designed based on needs
that are species appropriate [Hirskyj-Douglas and Read 2014]. One of the pioneering
efforts [Lee et al. 2006] proposes a cybernetics system that transmits the sensation of
human contact through the Internet to a chicken, for its therapeutic effects on both
chicken and humans. The system transfers the chicken’s motion to a physical doll on an
XY-axis positioning table or as a real-time 3D visualization of the chicken. A significant
part of the research in the ACI area focuses on positive stimulation environments for
pets through playing, which is considered one of the most innate behaviors of animals.
Digital games were proposed in Pons et al. [2015] for cats in a multimodal virtual
environment deploying kinetic sensors indoors.
A prototype for human-dog communication [Lemasson et al. 2013], based on a smart-
phone attached to the dog, includes communication with respect to various senses such
as smelling, hearing, touching, vibration, and testing food. This extensive portfolio
of communication can be used to train service and working animals, in addition to
improving human-animal interaction. It was found in Weilenmann and Juhlin [2011]
that even a simple GPS enabled collar can improve human-animal interaction. A case
study [Paldanius et al. 2011] on dog owners’ needs and expectations toward commu-
nication technologies revealed limitations in usability of the current systems and ap-
plications. A specialized social media platform for pets was proposed in Upson [2008],
where the pet’s activity is automatically monitored through Radio Frequency Identi-
fication (RFID) activity tags they carry, and automatically posted on social networks.
There are proposed extensions of these social media platforms to nonhuman species in
McGrath [2009]. A pet video chat system based on Skype was proposed in Golbeck and
Neustaedter [2012].

3.2. Tracking and Monitoring of Human’s Best Friends

Interpreting a dog’s posture via wearable activity recognition systems has been the
subject of significant research (cf. Ladha et al. [2013]) in an effort to better understand
their behavior in natural environments, and to analyze their eating and sleeping pat-
terns. The authors of Brugarolas et al. [2013] used devices such as an accelerometer
and gyroscope to produce data and transmit via a wireless sensing system on a dog’s
vest. The system uses machine learning algorithms to interpret various static dog pos-
tures, like eating off the ground or lying, as well as activities, like climbing stairs and
walking. Similarly, Winters et al. [2015a] proposed algorithms for the recognition of
dog postures, and also for nondomesticated terrestrial mammals in general [McClune
et al. 2014] via studies on a Eurasian badger. A dog-to-handler communication system
[Byrne et al. 2014] enables bidirectional communication with dogs equipped with sen-
sors and a GPS; the dogs can activate signal triggers, and handlers can send vibration
signals to the dog. Finally, a wireless health monitoring system for dogs was proposed
in Brugarolas et al. [2016] to gather and analyze the health data through a wearable
jacket.

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:8 A. Jukan et al.

3.3. Service Dogs and Working Dogs

In a typical scenario, one service dog is dedicated to one person with chronic health
conditions, such as visual or physical impairment, epilepsy, or diabetes. A user-friendly
canine alarm system for service dogs, based on a pull-off trigger monitored by a Rasp-
berry Pi, was proposed in Robinson et al. [2015]. The authors of Mealin et al. [2015]
propose a communication system with audio and vibrotactile feedback for blind people
to monitor their service dogs and interpret their dogs’ feelings and body language. The
work presented in Robinson et al. [2014] evaluates dog interfaces for alarm systems,
which allow diabetes alert dogs to remotely call for help when a person (i.e., their
companion) falls unconscious. The article discusses the needs of individual dogs when
designing such interfaces. Similarly, Hauser et al. [2014] argues that guide dogs, when
off work, are just pets that have basic needs like feeding, grooming, attention, playing,
and free running. Therefore, as this article suggests, research on dog toys that also use
sensor technologies for guide dogs, is an important future direction to improve their
welfare. A pilot study [Alcaidinho 2016] explores the use of activity trackers for the
assessment of service dogs to show how suitable an individual dog is for a specific work.
A comprehensive survey is presented in Filan and Llewellyn-Jones [2006] that ex-
plored the Medline, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases for research papers on the
effect of animal-assisted therapy for dementia. Animal-assisted therapy appears to be
beneficial for people with dementia, and carries a potential for technological innova-
tion in ACIs for therapy dogs. Notably also, it was demonstrated in Johnston-Wilder
et al. [2015] that a cancer detection dog can put different pressure on the positive and
negative cancer samples while sniffing them, and this difference in pressure can be
recognized with sensors.
Unlike service dogs, working dogs are typically dedicated to a task, rather than to
an individual human. They are widely used in search and rescue, and military combat
situations, and are typically equipped with sophisticated wearable devices. The use of
smart technologies in Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) dogs has been proposed in var-
ious combinations. These could be wireless cameras mounted on the dog’s shoulders as
proposed in Ribeiro et al. [2008], or a combination of cameras, microphones, speakers,
GPS, and networks, as proposed in Ferworn et al. [2006]. The ongoing development of
a telepresence system for USAR dogs is reported in Tran et al. [2010]. The authors of
Komori et al. [2015] propose the detection of continuous barking, derived from audio
and body motions of USAR dogs, signaling the localization of victims searched. Like-
wise, Ribeiro et al. [2009] proposes to transmit the pose of USAR dogs every 50ms
through an ad-hoc mesh network, to interpret the dog’s intention and predict search
and rescue success. A motion sensor on a dog’s collar for communication via the use
of head gestures is proposed in Valentin et al. [2015]. A health monitoring system for
USAR dogs was proposed in Bozkurt et al. [2014] which is of particular concern since
USAR dogs often work long hours in extreme conditions. In another scenario, USAR
dogs are used in tandem with robots, and are thus protected from harm without com-
promising search and rescue missions. In Ferworn et al. [2012], USAR dogs carry snake
robots into areas that are inaccessible for their human handlers and too dangerous, or
too narrow for dogs.

4. FARM ANIMALS: MANAGING ANIMAL GROUPS

In contrast to domestic animals, in a typical farm setting, animal welfare is managed
in the context of a group, and not individually, while their identity is considered in
the context of production utility. Unlike companion and working animals, farm ani-
mals are raised for the commercial utility of the products they can deliver: eggs, dairy,
meat, leather, wool, etc. Economic factors involved in deploying smart systems play an

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:9

important role in this context. This section reviews research on smart technologies for
farm animals as a group, focusing on applications to cows, pigs, chickens, rabbits, and
sheep. We organize the review according to the two main habitation categories for farm
animals: indoor and outdoor. Indoor animal farming is the most common kind of farm-
ing, with largest amount of work reported. Table III summarizes applications, research
papers, and research questions addressed in indoor farming, categorized according to
the species. Outdoor farming practices, generally viewed as a more natural setting for
animals, are summarized in Table IV and described in Section 4.2. We summarize the
technologies reviewed for farm animals in Table V.
4.1. Indoor Farm Animals
Farm animals raised indoors are an interesting case study for smart technologies since
this involves a coordinated smart ecosystem that integrates smart building and energy
innovations. The work reviewed presents isolated parts of that vision, often motivated
by the economic factors of animal farming, which is unfortunately reflected through
animal health, and the quality of resulting animal products. A fair portion of work
surveyed focuses on activity monitoring and indoor tracking, directly applicable to the
animal’s ability to move indoors. This is a critical welfare factor, since in most cases
these animals remain in that setting for their entire lifetime. Using smart technology
for more efficient animal farming, both for economic and welfare reasons, has surpris-
ingly received far less attention than agricultural farming.
Monitoring the health of cattle was studied in Warren et al. [2003], where they pro-
posed and developed a veterinary telemedicine infrastructure that includes wearable
sensors and a Bluetooth system. A similar focus on heart rate and activity level mon-
itoring was discussed in Sieber et al. [2012]. The control sensors are equipped with a
low-power wireless routing protocol, which presents engineering challenges. Cow’s es-
trus, heat stress, and onset of calving was the focus in Li et al. [2010] and Mudziwepasi
and Scott [2014]. The proposed systems use ZigBee based wireless sensor networks
to detect the body temperature and movement. Another effort [Poursaberi et al. 2011]
focuses on detecting lameness in cows using camera sensors in real time to detect the
curve formation by the head position and back posture. A sensing climate control sys-
tem for indoor cattle is proposed in Sarangi et al. [2014] to improve the comfort level
of animals and detect disease. The focus in Pourvoyeur et al. [2006] is on finding the
location of indoor cows and characterizing their behavior.
In contrast to cattle, where the work reviewed was focused on animal health care
and monitoring, most of the work on other farm species focused on ambient monitor-
ing, like climate control in Congguo et al. [2010]. The system uses sensors connected
through the GPRS system to monitor temperature, humidity, and indoor light inten-
sity. In a similar setting of pig farming, Lee and Yeo [2010] uses sensors and cameras
to detect and control various parameters such as temperature, humidity, illumina-
tion, and smell. The approach in Zhang et al. [2012] deploys a ZigBee system in a
wireless sensor network setting for ambient monitoring in real time. Paper Arvanitis
et al. [2007] focuses on smart climate cooling of animal buildings for pigs in order to
increase productivity and animal welfare. The process of animal space management
was studied in Dalgaard and Thomsen [2010] where they use technology to select,
separate, and move pigs in a smart building setting. They propose to use modular
robots to create a smart construction of closed stalls and pathways and boundaries
capable of dynamic real-time reconfiguration. The same adaptive system can be used
in animal welfare to increase the living space based on the number of animals in the
room.
A few papers focus on porcine health, including McCauley et al. [2005] where the
welfare of pigs in stressful environments is monitored via measuring body temperature

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
 10:10
Table III. Indoor Farm Animals: Applications and Technologies
Application Papers Technology Open Questions on “How to:”
CATTLE
Antenna diversity collar, design low-cost technology?
Kwong et al. [2009]
relay router, and base station implement low-power devices?
Li et al. [2010]
Health monitoring wearable sensors and cameras accurately detect body temperature?
Poursaberi et al. [2011]
ZigBee accurately detect posture
Mudziwepasi and Scott [2014]
Wireless sensor network (e.g., to determine lameness)?
Cows equipped with
active transponders,
Tracking and activity Pourvoyeur et al. [2006] design algorithms for indoor tracking?
GPS receivers,
accelerometer , and magnetometer
Heart rate monitoring, magnetometer, control sensors with routing protocols?
Dairy/meat production Sieber et al. [2012]
accelerometer for activity enable low-power consumption?
Accurate climate control
match the data to the comfort
Ambient monitoring Sarangi et al. [2014] through sensors,
level of animals?
feed and fluid monitoring
PIGS
Dalgaard and Thomsen [2010]
Sensors to monitor temperature,
Congguo et al. [2010] manage the smart farm in real time?
humidity, air-cooling, light intensity
Ambient monitoring Lee and Yeo [2010] create boundaries and walls capable of
Modular robots construct
Zhang et al. [2012] dynamic real-time reconfiguration?
closed stalls and pathways
Arvanitis et al. [2007]
Meat production
ZigBee, enable data analytics to gather, process, and store the
Better health Ma et al. [2012]
RFID tags on pig ears information of pig breeding process?
Image processing used to measure sensor porcine breath?
Weixing and Zhilei [2010]
Porcine health the abdominal movement of a pig, relate environmental parameters
McCauley et al. [2005]
level of animal stress to pig’s welfare?
HENS
Humidity, temperature, climate quality sensors
Jindarat and Wuttidittachotti [2015] relate weather condition to
Ambient monitoring Remotely controlled fans
Ammad-uddin et al. [2014] farm room management?
Wearable RFID tags, accelerometer
Body-mounted accelerometers
Hens activity monitoring Banerjee et al. [2012] classify activity mechanism for hens?
equipped with wireless interfaces
RABBIT
Temperature sensors mounted collect the ambient temperature
Ambient monitoring Noor et al. [2013]
inside rabbit cage inside the rabbit cage?
A. Jukan et al.

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:11

Table IV. Outdoor Farm Animals (Cattle, Except Sheep in Harris et al. [1998])
Application Papers Technology
Schwager et al. [2007]
Butler et al. [2004]
Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2007] GPS, servers, sensors, base station,
Llaria et al. [2015] antenna collar, accelerometer,
Behavioral monitoring
Guo et al. [2006] pedometer, ADC, modems,
Kuankid et al. [2014] microprocessors
Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2009]
Olesinski et al. [2007]
Wietrzyk et al. [2008]
Kwong et al. [2009]
Sensors, processor boards,
Harris et al. [1998]
Animal health solar systems, Bluetooth,
Warren et al. [2003]
telemedicine
Nagl et al. [2003]
Draganova et al. [2010]

Table V. Classification Based on Technologies used in Farm Industry

Technology Applications Papers
Schwager et al. [2007],
Butler et al. [2004],
Llaria et al. [2015],
Tracking and positioning,
GPS sensors Guo et al. [2006],
behavior monitoring
Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2009],
Nagl et al. [2003]
Elkaim et al. [2008]
Wietrzyk et al. [2008],
Measures the movement acceleration Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2007],
Accelerometer
Examples: feed intake by attaching Guo et al. [2006], Kuankid et al. [2014],
sensor
it to the collar Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2009],
Banerjee et al. [2012]
Wietrzyk et al. [2008],
Low- cost device, usually attached
Pedometer Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2007],
to legs for activity monitoring,
sensor Guo et al. [2006],
such as counting number of steps
Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2009]
ECG, Pulsoxymetry Heart/respiratory rate monitoring Warren et al. [2003], Sieber et al. [2012]
Also surgically implantable (in pigs), Warren et al. [2003],
Body temperature
used to detect fever and body temperature Mudziwepasi and Scott [2014],
sensors
during estrus period (cows) McCauley et al. [2005]
Sarangi et al. [2014], Jindarat and
Wuttidittachotti [2015],
Ammad-uddin et al. [2014],
Ambient sensing of the farm houses (indoor), Congguo et al. [2010],
Temperature and
maintained to comfort the animals Lee and Yeo [2010],
humidity sensors
and also for better yield (milk, meat) Zhang et al. [2012],
Arvanitis et al. [2007],
Noor et al. [2013],
McCauley et al. [2005]
Health/behavior monitoring Lee and Yeo [2010], Weixing and Zhilei [2010],
Camera
using image processing Poursaberi et al. [2011]
A wireless application
and network layer protocol Zhang et al. [2012], Ma et al. [2012],
ZigBee
Low cost, low power, Li et al. [2010]
and mesh networking
Wietrzyk et al. [2008],
Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2007],
Kwong et al. [2009],
Guo et al. [2006],
Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2009],
Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) and Banerjee et al. [2012],
Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) Olesinski et al. [2007],
WSN and MANET motes (including sensors) communicate wirelessly, Sarangi et al. [2014],
data is usually processed at the server, and Ammad-uddin et al. [2014],
also partially at motes Zhang et al. [2012],
McCauley et al. [2005],
Nagl et al. [2003],
Sieber et al. [2012], Ma et al. [2012],
Li et al. [2010],
Mudziwepasi and Scott [2014]

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:12 A. Jukan et al.

Table VI. Wild Animals: Applications, Devices, and Systems

Application Papers Devices Systems
Song et al. [2011]
Anthony et al. [2012]
Huang et al. [2010]
Zviedris et al. [2010]
Juang et al. [2002]
Radoi et al. [2015]
Rutishauser et al. [2011]
Picco et al. [2015]
Tan et al. [2011]
Anand et al. [2013] Hybrid cellular/ad-hoc networks
He et al. [2016] Highly sparse WSN
Dressler et al. [2016] GPS collars, wearable ZigBee and GSM/GPRS
Bagree et al. [2010] tracking devices, camera Delay Tolerant Networks (DTN)
Joshi et al. [2008] traps Miniature sensors, Satellite networks
Tracking
Tapiador-Morales et al. [2015] Xbee sensors, IR Camera and proximity detection
Liu and Chen [2011] sensors RFID sensors, systems
Dyo et al. [2009] magnetic sensors Grid positioning
Dyo et al. [2010] IR image sensor network
Dyo et al. [2012] Magnetic localization
Mainwaring et al. [2002]
Hunter et al. [2013]
Currier et al. [2015]
Constantinescu et al. [2013]
Liu et al. [2015]
He et al. [2008]
Nakagawa et al. [2014]
Peng and Su [2012]
Elkaim et al. [2008]
Tennakoon and Madusanka [2015]
Mathur et al. [2014]
Viani et al. [2011]
Viani et al. [2014] Electric fences, virtual fences
Zimmerman et al. [2014] Infrasonic sound systems
Zhang [2011] Lights signals for drivers
Fencing sensors, IR
Ilcev and Skoryk [2014] GSM, GPRS, 3G, WiFi, Zigbee
sensors, Seismic sensors
Duran-Herrmann et al. [2007] WSN with image processing
Doppler radars, antennas,
Cohabitation Tovar et al. [2010] WSN with habitat monitoring
IR cameras Camera
Diaz et al. [2012] IR video systems
sensors, thermal and
Wei et al. [2014] Deformable Part Model detection
RGB cameras Mobile phone
Zhang et al. [2015] systems
Cerra et al. [2009] Sparsogram
Oishi and Matsunaga [2010] Microwave systems
Rusu [2014]
Fackelmeier and Biebl [2009]
Nakandala et al. [2014]
Wireless networks (cellular, WiFi,
sensor)
Carter et al. [2015] Mobile devices, servers
In confinement Augmented Reality
Pons et al. [2014] Sensors, cameras
Intelligent Playful Environment
for Animals (IPE4A)

and ambient parameters using sensors and the TinyOS sensor system. In paper Ma
et al. [2012] the growth process of pigs is studied by gathering and evaluating data
on a server-based system that uses ZigBee, and RFID tags attached to the ear of the
animal. Finally, paper Weixing and Zhilei [2010] monitors porcine health by detecting
respiratory rate, and uses image processing to measure the abdominal movement of a
pig with sensors and cameras.
The focus of chicken farming and that of other small animals is even more biased
toward ambient monitoring over health. A system [Jindarat and Wuttidittachotti 2015]
that uses sensors and fans to monitor and control humidity, temperature, and climate
quality of the building is proposed toward the goal of increasing egg and meat productiv-
ity. With similar objectives, Ammad-uddin et al. [2014] focuses on indoor climate control
via wearable RFID tags, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, and accelerometers.
The system is also used to measure vital parameters of hens, which also contributes
to their welfare. Activity monitoring of hens was studied in Banerjee et al. [2012]
with body-mounted accelerometers equipped with wireless interfaces. Another mobility

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:13

scenario is analyzed in Banerjee et al. [2014] where authors propose to use a wireless
wearable sensor-based jump detection mechanism, tracking three-dimensional hens
movement, to detect how jumps from different heights may affect the landing impact
and result in keel bone damage. A recent paper [Siegford et al. 2016] presents differ-
ent tracking systems for egg laying hens also aimed at providing activity and location
information of individual hens to prevent damage to the keel bone. As an example of
other small farm animals, Noor et al. [2013] uses temperature sensors mounted on the
cage walls to monitor temperature inside a rabbit cage.
In most of the systems presented so far, the focus was on system engineering and
connectivity, and less so on systems for collection and analysis of the data gathered
through sensing. Some examples can be found in the literature on managing the data
with the help of web-based applications. Work presented in Palmer et al. [2004] and
Nusai et al. [2015] focuses on modeling of cattle behavior with simulators, and pro-
viding an application for online screening and diagnosis of disease. Similarly, Laokok
and Ketprom [2008] proposes a web-based application for traceability of the poultry
products, and collection information on farming, feeding, and processing. Finally, Cao
et al. [2012] proposes a database for pig health monitoring and growth.

4.2. Outdoor Farm Animals

Farm animals raised outdoors are in a more natural setting. Smart systems in this
setting can either leverage the existing wireless cellular network infrastructure, or
create an infrastructureless wireless sensor network in an ad-hoc setting. The focus of
monitoring in an outdoor setting is primarily on animal tracking and activity monitor-
ing, with wearable sensor systems often mounted on smart collars. Most of the work in
this free range setting focuses on cattle.
Work presented in Schwager et al. [2007], Guo et al. [2006], Kuankid et al. [2014], and
Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2009] categorize the periods of animal activity and inactivity
using an accelerometer, pedometer, or magnetometer to measure the position and head
angle of cows. Similarly, Llaria et al. [2015] monitors the behavior of cattle with a
collar equipped with geolocation devices and communication interfaces to determine
the location of animals in mountain pastures. A proposed system [Olesinski et al.
2007] tags cows with wireless devices and sensors to locate and track their movement.
A mobile ad-hoc network system with routing protocols that enable low-power sensors
is proposed in Wietrzyk and Radenkovic [2007]. The animals are fitted with built-in
accelerometers for feed intake, and pedometers for walking intensity.
Monitoring the health of cows by collecting and analyzing data obtained from sensors
mounted on cattle is studied in Nagl et al. [2003]. The proposed system controls the
sensors wirelessly with a microcontroller and uses GPS to control the animal’s move-
ment. A system to detect diseases or pregnancy is presented in Wietrzyk et al. [2008].
The collars use a built-in accelerometer, and a pedometer to measure the intensity of
feed intake. With a similar focus on the health of cows, Kwong et al. [2009] proposes
a real-time health monitoring system, whereby the collars are equipped with antenna,
relay routers, and base stations. This smart system focuses on low cost and power
consumption, and incorporates solar energy. Harris et al. [1998] propose to monitor
nervous system activity and cardiovascular system response in sheep. The system,
called Free Range Physiological Monitor, is attached to the back of a sheep to record
and process raw data for analysis. In some cases, environmental monitoring is also a
subject of research. In Butler et al. [2004], virtual fences are developed that can con-
trol animal movement and space without permanent structures, whereby the cows are
equipped with a smart collar consisting of a mounted wireless network interface, GPS
units, and sound amplifiers.

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:14 A. Jukan et al.

5. WILD ANIMALS: NO RULES OTHER THAN NATURE

Wireless sensor networks are the dominant smart technology for monitoring the be-
havior and physical characteristics of animals in the wild. This technology exhibits
exceptionally low battery power consumption and is designed to be ultra-lightweight.
These systems are robustly engineered to deal with intermittent connectivity, due to
either animal behavior or environmental factors, and endure various climate and envi-
ronmental conditions. Another category of more recent work proposes a more generic
IoT technology framework, as the evolution of wireless sensor networks moves toward
more heterogeneity, including wireless cellular networks, alternative versions of ra-
dio technologies, or even unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) [Dos Santos et al. 2015].
Of note is the importance of visual sensing through cameras, which due to the lim-
ited bandwidth of wireless sensor networks has not been deployed to reach their full
potential, such as for visual recognition or in-situ image processing.

5.1. Tracking
Wildlife conservation has motivated research in tracking wild animals long before
the invention of the Internet. Today’s technology makes it possible to collect, process,
and visualize data, both in real time and to be used long term to protect endangered
animals. Tracking devices are often designed to pinpoint the exact position of the
animal, and track the motion of the animal through low-power acceleration sensors
[Song et al. 2011]. The design of the smart system can be inspired by specific animal
behavior, leading to new innovation in network architecture, or existing technologies
and systems that can be adapted to the specific animal behavior leading to innovation
in animal welfare applications and scientific discovery. Finally, just like domestic and
farm animals, wild animals can also be tracked with wearable or nonwearable sensor
systems.
A novel hybrid architecture [Anthony et al. 2012] for monitoring whooping cranes,
an endangered species, uses global infrastructure (cellular networks) to monitor the
cranes annual migration (4,000km), and an ad-hoc network in breeding and nesting
locations. This platform led to cellular sensor networks. The focus in Huang et al.
[2010] is on a low-cost high-sparse Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) system prototype
for tracking multiple species in the same environment. Paper Zviedris et al. [2010]
proposes LynxNet, a GPS-based monitoring system that uses collars on lynx in de-
lay tolerant networks. An early system to support wildlife tracking and conservation
across large geographic areas called Zebranet [Juang et al. 2002] used a wireless peer-
to-peer (ad-hoc) sensor system that minimized energy consumption and storage. One
of the interesting challenges addressed in a system called Virtual-Beacon [Radoi et al.
2015] used to track wild horses are methods for uploading sensor data from mobile
nodes to base stations in nodes with limited power. Mountain lions were studied in
Rutishauser et al. [2011] with a network system composed of both mobile and sta-
tionary communication, sensing, storage, and processing nodes. A generic monitoring
system framework [Picco et al. 2015] uses georeferenced proximity detection, with an
adaptive model suitable for biologists to conduct the research on various species. Mon-
itoring techniques based on ZigBee and GPRS [Tan et al. 2011] have been used on two
endangered species of monkeys in the Mexican jungle. Simulations of hotspot-based
WSN routing algorithms [Anand et al. 2013] have been used to monitor protected wild
tigers.
The research reviewed thus far included a specialized tracking device, or a GPS-
based collar. Tracking based on sensors located in corresponding geographic areas
with in-situ animal detection systems has also been explored. A pioneering effort in
this space, known as DuckIsland [Mainwaring et al. 2002], designs and develops a

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:15

complete WSN for habitat monitoring. The aim of this work is to understand the
behavior of wild animals, especially in islands where the presence of humans can
disturb breeding patterns. Some efforts [He et al. 2016; Bagree et al. 2010; Liu and
Chen 2011] focus on integrated camera-sensor network systems, image processing for
animal detection, tracking, species classification, and cloud-based data management
that includes a web interface. Other approaches use ultra-low-power sensor systems
(and low weight <2gr) [Dressler et al. 2016] for tracking bats, and a WSN system
based on grid positioning [Joshi et al. 2008] for tracking turtles. Tapiador-Morales
et al. [2015] presents a new monitoring system for wild animals using inertial sensors,
which transmits the information using ZigBee technology. A group of papers [Dyo et al.
2009, 2010, 2012] focus on automated and sustainable wildlife monitoring systems
with RFID for badgers. Finally, paper Elkaim et al. [2008] focuses on satellite-based
monitoring with a newly designed low-case tag, and a unified sensor error model that
is used to determine the bias drift from actual data.
There are solutions that do not focus solely on wireless technologies, but also on
processing and visualization of the data that is collected. A framework for processing
of tracking data, as well as their analysis and visualization [Hunter et al. 2013] has
been proposed to study animal behavior and ecology in Australia. Web frameworks
(website, databases) [Currier et al. 2015; Constantinescu et al. 2013] have been used
for collaborative tracking of aquatic animals. A wildlife monitoring and communication
system [Liu et al. 2015] was a part of an innovative proposal for the tracking and
recognition of wild animals. An integrated video and sensor system [He et al. 2008]
was mounted directly on the animal to record the surroundings the way the deer
would see them. An animal-to-animal Internet sharing capability method is proposed
in Nakagawa et al. [2014] in order to maximize monitoring performance in inaccessible
areas. Peng and Su [2012] propose a monitoring system to detect both the wild animals
and poachers and alert authorities by sending pictures or videos. Finally, Dyo et al.
[2010] proposes the use of magnets for the localization of underground animals with the
help of receiver antennas for monitoring over comparably longer periods of time. This
type of magneto-inductive tracking can be used for any type of underground animal
species.
5.2. Human-Animal Cohabitation
Human-animal cohabitation concerns welfare of wild and feral animals in urban and
rural areas populated by humans. A smart system [Tennakoon and Madusanka 2015]
in Sri Lanka was used to detect breakages in fences designed to keep wild elephants
away from humans for the protection of both humans and animals. Similarly, a WSN
system that uses passive nodes and infrasonic sounds [Mathur et al. 2014] was deployed
in India to deter elephants from crossing railways. The use of IR sensors and seismic
sensors was proposed in Nakandala et al. [2014] for detecting wild elephants entering
villages. A new WSN system [Viani et al. 2011, 2014] was developed to protect both
animals and humans by alerting drivers about possible wildlife crossing. In an effort
to protect sea turtle hatchlings from tourists, this research [Zimmerman et al. 2014]
integrates a low-cost motion sensor system with wireless cellular network. A new
approach [Zhang 2011] proposes an Internet of Things (IoT)-based autonomous water
conservancy system based on the actual water levels and local density of deer, an
endangered species in China. Another approach [Ilcev and Skoryk 2014] proposes a
new positioning system based on ultrasonic signals for landing flight objects used for
wildlife protection.
Image processing is often used in conjunction with camera-based sensors for animal
recognition and their protection [Duran-Herrmann et al. 2007; Tovar et al. 2010]. A new
methodology [Diaz et al. 2012] applies compressive sensing for sound recognition and

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:16 A. Jukan et al.

classification in WSN systems in order to minimize the number of samples required

to reduce power consumption. An IR video processing algorithm for the recognition
of migratory birds [Wei et al. 2014] is used to determine the optimum allocation of
wind farm areas to avoid collision with birds. Other efforts detect wild kangaroos with
cameras [Zhang et al. 2015], wild animals in snow [Oishi and Matsunaga 2010], and
hidden fawns in meadows using compression-based algorithms, radars, and thermal
and RGB cameras [Cerra et al. 2009]. A new technique called Sparsogram is proposed
in Rusu [2014] for the classification of collected audios in order to detect unlawful
human intrusion in protected wild areas. A radar system [Fackelmeier and Biebl 2009]
is used to detect covered microwave reflecting objects with high quantity of water to
protect fawns from death during the mowing of pastures.
5.3. Wild Animals in Confinement
Wild animals in confinement, including zoos and animal sanctuaries, have been objects
of research by the ACI science community, with the purpose of animal welfare but also
to study the human-animal interactions for education and conservation. Paper Carter
et al. [2015] discusses the role and opportunities that ACI and new technologies can
play in zoos to improve animal welfare. In Pons et al. [2014], a few scenarios for the
so-called Intelligent Playful Environment for Animals (IPE4A) are proposed to help
animals overcome “isolation, poor physical condition, repetitive training exercises, or
remote digital interaction with humans.”
6. FINDINGS
This section summarizes the main findings from this review that we believe show
a potential for further innovation and broad impact. We present the findings over
various categories of smart systems, including sensors, networks, and cloud computing
systems. We discuss economic factors that drive all aspects of systems engineering and
design, and their impact on animal welfare. We conclude this section with a discussion
on research opportunities.
6.1. Wearable vs. Nonwearable Sensor Systems
For domestic and wild animals, wearable sensors have been used primarily for GPS-
based tracking. The emphasis is on engineering compact and lightweight designs to
minimize animal discomfort, and improve reliability since animals can destroy devices
that make them uncomfortable. Depending on the species, wearable trackers can be
attached to various parts of the body, such as necks (dogs) or legs (birds). Working
domestic animals, like service and search and rescue dogs, are mostly equipped with
wearable jackets with multiple sensors that depend on the application. Jackets are
considered a better choice over collars from an animal welfare perspective since they
distribute the weight of the wearable system evenly over the animal’s body. In some
cases, dog’s vests include a combination of multipurpose sensors, which combine health,
tracking, and human-health related sensors, and include vibrotactile feedback. For
farm animals, on the other hand, the driving factor is the cost and the accuracy of sensor
data gathered, so the weight of wearables plays less of a role. For instance, collars used
in cattle farming can be sizable since they include an active transponder, antenna,
accelerometer, and GPS sensors. Some temperature sensors are also implantable in
the form of ear tags for the cattle or surgically embedded as in the case of pigs. In
general, the part of the body where the sensor is deployed is important not only to
the welfare and comfort of the animal but also to the quality and type of information
collected. Alternatively nonwearable systems for monitoring and tracking appear in
the form of kinetic sensors, or ambient sensors of the buildings where animals are
housed. Nonwearable ambient monitoring is especially important in indoor farming,

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:17

where it is used to measure temperature and humidity. Nonwearable systems are in

comparison less developed overall, and carry a potential for further innovation. While
most of the sensor systems reported support network connectivity, only some of the
sensor systems reviewed connect to a common shared infrastructure, like the cloud.
This makes it hard to do longitudinal tracking, and share data and best practices.
6.2. Networked Remote Sensing
The diversity of animal species reflects the richness and heterogeneity of wireless tech-
nologies used for animal tracking. Most notably in the domain of wild animal tracking,
multiple types of hybrid wireless networks were reviewed. These range from inte-
grated cellular and ad-hoc networks, to wireless sensor networks and delay tolerant
networks. In many cases, the wireless network architecture needs to be adapted to the
species’ migratory patterns, and designed to be ultra-low-power and low cost. There
are technical challenges with respect to bandwidth and capacity management in the
integration of video- and camera-based wireless sensor networks. The next generation
of such networks may need to be built and operated underground, underwater, and un-
der challenging climate and geographic conditions, where special attention needs to be
paid to the robustness and adaptability of the system. A few research papers reviewed
pointed to the issue of maintenance required for the systems built in remote wilderness
settings. For domestic animals and pets, a standard-based integration with wireless
3G networks and smartphone-based applications is a common approach, and surpris-
ingly no research work has been found in the emerging area of 5G cellular networks
to focus on livestock agriculture, or networks for animal welfare. In the area of live-
stock agriculture in general, there are already commercial and proprietary smart farm
management services that help farmers to track whether livestock have enough food,
water, and fresh air, while also monitoring the temperature and ensuring that they
are safe and secure. The key challenges for wider adoption are trade-offs between cost,
battery power, and network connectivity in practical livestock monitoring scenarios.
These systems need to be augmented to provide access to various stakeholders, includ-
ing remote veterinary care, consumers, and policy makers. A holistic and transparent
system that integrates networked information systems and tools to monitor, gather,
and analyze the animal welfare data, would enable the exchange of vital information
between stakeholders that could prevent animal abuse, unnecessary loss of life, and
animal borne diseases, and provide further economic societal benefit. Robots could be
employed to care for and exercise animals remotely.
6.3. Cloud-Based Applications and Data Processing
The use of remote sensing technology that requires network connectivity and remote
access has been effective in supporting the conservation of species, habitats, commu-
nities, and ecosystems. There are commercial GPS systems for tracking lost pets, and
smart programmable pet doors that determine which pets can go in and out, and when.
The use of remote sensing in the farm setting is currently focused on providing farm-
ers with new applications, such as precision maps or notifications that help enhance
crop care, often referred to as precision agriculture. There is very little focus on a joint
consideration of animals and plants as synergistic and essential parts of smart live-
stock and plant based agriculture. Research on managing and representing the large
amounts of data, including animal sounds, pictures, and videos, generated by wear-
able and nonwearable animal sensor network systems is in its infancy. Most of the
work surveyed, in all domains of animal welfare, assume a virtual connection to either
a stand-alone computational node, or a distant server, but only very few extend the
data processing and sharing to the cloud. Although not considered in this survey, do-
mestic pets can currently be tracked and monitored through cloud-based applications

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:18 A. Jukan et al.

over commercial wireless cellular network in urban settings. But little is known about
the data collected, and whether it can be shared, or used to track the health of an-
imals, animal welfare, or their living conditions. For farm animals, where economic
factors play a role related to the quality and quantity of the animal-based products,
commercial web-service applications have been proposed to monitor animal growth,
health, and food intake. The same questions regarding data collection exist, including
the transparency that is achieved through open data access which could be useful to
the interested consumer of these animal products. An example of the power of sharing
this data is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) pilot pro-
gram in Africa3 that uses mobile phone applications to track animal vaccination and
treatment campaigns, and stores this information in a global database that can be used
to pinpoint and contain animal disease outbreak.

6.4. Economic Factors

Economic factors are perhaps the most critical consideration in this space. In particu-
lar, in livestock agriculture, low-cost and low-power devices are imperative. Cost is a
real factor for even simple issues like having a unique ID for every animal. There are
livestock identification and tracking systems in Australia (National Livestock Identi-
fication System), the European Union (EU), and the USA (National Animal Identifi-
cation System) that advocate or require the use of microchips or other identification
devices on livestock in order to monitor and track an animal throughout its lifetime
using a centralized database. While the upfront costs of microchips and the support-
ing computing infrastructure can be expensive, these systems could be invaluable in
tracking a specific animal through the entire supply chain, and quickly identifying
and containing disease outbreaks, which is critical to human health. The enormous
costs incurred in such situations that end up in large scale recalls of animal-based
products could very well make the large scale deployment of these technologies very
cost effective. From a techno-economic perspective, systems that can support openness,
programmability, and multivendor interoperability are expected to lead to better tech-
nology products, while lowering the cost. The socio-economic perspective could lead to
a better understanding of animal health and welfare and strengthen human-animal
relations. This awareness could have an impact on the environment, and lead to cost
effective animal-based products that take animal welfare in consideration.

6.5. Discussion on Research Opportunities

In order to make smart technologies usable and economically viable for all three groups
studied, there is a need for computer science and engineering research in ultra-low-
power and ultra-low-cost hardware devices, more efficient algorithms for collecting and
storing large amounts of data, advances in networking, and common infrastructure
and repositories to enable sharing of information, alerts, and best practices in real
time. To interpret and analyze the rich multimodal data collected, there is a need for
sophisticated data analytics including ones based on machine learning and natural
language processing. We believe that the integration of animal welfare requirements
into early design of smart cities and communities is a tremendous opportunity for
reuse and sustainability. Finally, current systems lack openness and provide technology
solutions with no interoperability in mind, which not only hinders innovation, but also
results in higher costs and a potential equipment vendor lock-in.
Interdisciplinary work involving computer scientists, engineers, animal behaviorists,
conservationists, and veterinarians could yield real innovations and new technologies

3 Aga in Action, Public release of the new EMPRES-i, http://www.fao.org/, last updated in September 2012.

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:19

in this space. These include novel gesture and posture recognition algorithms for all an-
imal groups considered, and enhanced two-way communication with animals through
implantable, wearable, or nonwearable devices. It would be valuable to generalize the
many specific instances of animals detecting natural disasters and diseases, and pro-
vide more sophisticated and interactive ways to warn and keep wild animals away from
danger via wearable devices. We believe interdisciplinary animal-centric computing re-
search is key for usable, sustainable, and economical smart technologies for ensuring
the welfare of all animals. Also, animal welfare and sustainable plant-based agricul-
ture should be linked through coordinated smart systems for increased sustainability.
Many disease outbreaks have been tied to inappropriate feeding practices.

7. CONCLUSION
This survey systematically reviewed smart technologies used in animal welfare, in
three main categories of animals: domestic, farm, and wild animals. A smart system,
as we define it, assumes sensing and computing capabilities that are interconnected,
not only with various networking technologies but also computing systems that can
collect, process, and evaluate data related to animal welfare. We defined animal welfare
in generic terms, recognizing that the systems reviewed serve to help animals stay
healthy, free of pain and suffering, and positively stimulated in their environment.
Many of the technologies reviewed have been used to great benefit in specific cases and
situations, but having all these technologies available and integrated with an open and
centralized database to track and share this information and best practices would have
enormous societal and economic benefits.
The following recommendations for further research include a few salient features
of the systems reviewed and their potential to improving animal welfare.
—Develop integrated and open cloud and edge computing based systems,
applications, and services. Even though research has been reported on precision
farming, much work remains to be done in integrating the specialized sensor network
systems with the current cloud services and infrastructure and opening the data and
systems for sharing, programmability, and further innovation.
—Integrate cross-species and cross-sectorial research. We have found a lot of
common features in how the animal-based sensor network systems are built and
used, but little or no evidence that the systems can be reused across species or animal
applications. For instance, the farming system can much benefit from the knowledge
in low-cost, and low-power wild animal tracking, as well as from lightweight wearable
systems designed for dogs.
—Include animal centered research in smart agriculture. Even though the
smart agriculture concepts do not explicitly exclude animals, much of the focus today
is on plant-based agriculture, and comparably less on livestock agriculture. Both
plant-based and livestock agriculture could greatly benefit from a holistic approach.
—Integrate topics of animal welfare conceptually into smart “X” systems and
the IoT world. Smart and connected cities and communities are now becoming a
reality. For little or no extra cost, these technologiescan also be used to track bird and
other wildlife migration patterns, track and find missing pets and livestock, predict
natural disasters, and a host of other possible applications. Smart transportation can
be used to monitor the welfare of transported animals, smart energy can be used to
track animals outdoors, smart cities can monitor wild animals in cities, and domestic
animal applications can be integrated into smart assisted homes.
—Create smart emergency and disaster response for animal welfare. All ani-
mals, be it pets, farm, zoo or wildlife, are arguably the biggest casualties in emergen-
cies like fires, earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters. In such situations,

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:20 A. Jukan et al.

when first responders are stretched to the limit, smart technologies can play a sig-
nificant role from detection to prevention to recovery. Smart systems can detect the
emergency, the number and kinds of animals in need, and take predetermined rescue
and recovery measures.
—Make animal welfare economically sustainable. As this review shows, ani-
mal welfare can be economically sustainable, when supported through low-cost
smart systems, or when integrated into systems already in place. The data pro-
vided by technologies can inform consumers of animal products of the provenance
of the livestock, provide strong economic incentives, and accelerate adoption by the
consumers.
—Use smart technologies to learn from the animal world. As part of the ACI,
there are untapped opportunities to use smart technologies learned from the animal
world. There is documented evidence that animals can provide early warnings for
impending natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes, and diseases
like heart attacks, cancer, or diverse types of seizures. Smart technologies present
the possibility to scale this from isolated and often unrelated case studies into an
actionable methodology that could have enormous societal benefits.
—Promote education and awareness. The key challenge in the adoption of any of
these smart technologies is a lack of awareness of its existence, effectiveness, and eco-
nomic benefits within the farming community, among consumers, and even technol-
ogists. Educating the veterinary and wildlife conservation communities about smart
technologies could also make great strides in increasing deployment. Computer sci-
ence and engineering curricula need to include syllabi on smart technologies and
systems for animal welfare.
There are undoubtedly hard technical and economic challenges to overcome, but these
are minor in comparison to changing the existing mind-set. As this review demon-
strates, there are many smart technologies in use today, and a sea of promising innova-
tions for the future, making it possible for smart technology to coexist with the animals
in a sustainable, humane, and mutually beneficial manner.

REFERENCES
Joelle Alcaidinho. 2016. Canine behavior and working dog suitability from quantimetric data. In Proceedings
of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’16).
ACM, New York, 193–197. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2859023
Muhammad Ammad-uddin, Muhammad Ayaz, El-Hadi Aggoune, and Muhammad Sajjad. 2014. Wireless
sensor network: A complete solution for poultry farming. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 2nd Interna-
tional Symposium on Telecommunication Technologies (ISTT). IEEE, 321–325.
Jose Anand, Aida Jones, T. K. Sandhya, and Konthoujam Besna. 2013. Preserving national animal us-
ing wireless sensor network based hotspot algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Con-
ference on Green High Performance Computing (ICGHPC’13). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICGHPC.
2013.6533937
David Anthony, William P. Bennett, Mehmet C. Vuran, Matthew B. Dwyer, Sebastian Elbaum, Anne Lacy,
Mike Engels, and Walter Wehtje. 2012. Sensing through the continent: Towards monitoring migratory
birds using cellular sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information
Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN’12), 329–340. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2185677.2185747
Konstantinos Arvanitis, George Pasgianos, Plamen Daskalov, Stavros Vougioukas, and Nick Sigrimis. 2007.
A nonlinear pi controller for climate control of animal buildings. In Proceedings of the 2007 European
Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, 5851–5857.
Birgit U. Stetina, Oswald D. Kothgassner, Elisabeth Kastenhofer, and Ilse Kryspin-Exner. 2011. Real life and
virtual interactions. Exploring new ways in emotion research and interventions. Active Ageing: Smart
Solutions New Markets 56, 1 (2011), 173–181. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/0.0001/0.001
Ravi Bagree, Vishwas Raj Jain, Aman Kumar, and Prabhat Ranjan. 2010. TigerCENSE: Wireless image
sensor network to monitor tiger movement. Real-World Wireless Sensor Networks, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Vol. 6511. Springer, 13–24. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17520-6_2

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:21

Debasmit Banerjee, Subir Biswas, Courtney Daigle, and Janice M. Siegford. 2012. Remote activity clas-
sification of hens using wireless body mounted sensors. In Proceedings of the 2012 9th International
Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks. IEEE, 107–112.
Debasmit Banerjee, Courtney L. Daigle, B. Dong, Kaitlin Wurtz, Ruth C. Newberry, Janice M. Siegford,
and Subir Biswas. 2014. Detection of jumping and landing force in laying hens using wireless wearable
sensors. Poultry Science 93, 11 (2014), 2724–2733. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2014-04006
Alper Bozkurt, David L. Roberts, Barbara L. Sherman, Rita Brugarolas, Sean Mealin, John Majikes, Pu Yang,
and Robert Loftin. 2014. Toward cyber-enhanced working dogs for search and rescue. IEEE Intelligent
Systems 29, 6 (Nov. 2014), 32–39. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2014.77
Rita Brugarolas, Tahmid Latif, James Dieffenderfer, Katherine Walker, Sherrie Yuschak, Barbara L. Sher-
man, David L. Roberts, and Alper Bozkurt. 2016. Wearable heart rate sensor systems for wireless
canine health monitoring. IEEE Sensors Journal 16, 10 (May 2016), 3454–3464. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/JSEN.2015.2485210
Rita Brugarolas, Tahmid Latif, James Dieffenderfer, Katherine Walker, Sherrie Yuschak, Barbara L. Sher-
man, David L. Roberts, and Alper Bozkurt. 2013. Behavior recognition based on machine learning
algorithms for a wireless canine machine interface. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International
Conference on Body Sensor Networks. 1–5. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/BSN.2013.6575505
Zack Butler, Peter Corke, Ron Peterson, and Daniela Rus. 2004. Virtual fences for controlling cows. In
Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 5. IEEE,
4429–4436.
Ceara Byrne, Ryan Kerwin, Jay Zuerndorfer, Scott Gilliland, Zehuo Guo, Melody Jackson, and Thad E.
Starner. 2014. Two-way communication between working dogs and their handlers. IEEE Pervasive
Computing 13, 2 (Apr. 2014), 80–83. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2014.38
Qi-ding Cao, Hui-yi Zhang, Hong-tao Wang, Ya-fei Gao, and Xiao-yong Zhang. 2012. Design and imple-
mentation of network pig raising system. In Proceedings of the 2012 3rd International Conference
on System Science, Engineering Design and Manufacturing Informatization (ICSEM), Vol. 1. IEEE,
328–331.
Marcus Carter, Sarah Webber, and Sally Sherwen. 2015. Naturalism and ACI: Augmenting zoo enclosures
with digital technology. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Com-
puter Entertainment Technology (ACE’15). ACM, New York, Article 61, 5 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1145/2832932.2837011
Daniele Cerra, Martin Israel, Mihai Datcu, Mihai Datcu De, and Télécom Paris. 2009. Parameter-free
clustering: Application to fawns detection. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Geoscience
and Remote Sensing Symposium, 467–469.
Giovanni Chiarini, Pradeep Ray, Shahriar Akter, Cristina Masella, and Aura Ganz. 2013. mHealth technolo-
gies for chronic diseases and elders: A systematic review. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communi-
cations 31, 9 (Sept. 2013), 6–18. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2013.SUP.0513001
Ma Congguo, Zhao Deshen, Ni Wei, and Zhang Huiping. 2010. Intelligent controlling system of pig growth
environment. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology
and Automation (ICICTA), Vol. 2. IEEE, 558–561.
Mihaela M. Constantinescu, Mihai P. Constantinescu, and Honoriu Valean. 2013. GPS collars data visual-
ization for wildlife management. In Proceedings of the 2013 17th International Conference on System
Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC’13); Joint Conference of SINTES 2013, SACCS 2013, SIMSIS
2013, 146–151. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSTCC.2013.6688950
Robert Currier, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Chris Simoniello, and Joel Bickford. 2015. iTAG : Developing a cloud
based , collaborative animal tracking network in the gulf of mexico. (2015), 5–7.
Lars Dalgaard and Bo Stjerne Thomsen. 2010. ModWall-A morphological boundary concept for pig stable
design based on modular robotics. In Proceedings of the 2010 41st International Symposium on Robotics
(ISR) and the 2010 6th German Conference on Robotics (ROBOTIK). VDE, 1–8.
Javier J. M. Diaz, Juan G. Colonna, Rodrigo B. Soares, Carlos M. S. Figueiredo, and Eduardo F. Nakamura.
2012. Compressive sensing for efficiently collecting wildlife sounds with wireless sensor networks. In
Proceedings of the 2012 21st International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks,
(ICCCN’12). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCCN.2012.6289298
Gilberto Antonio Marcon Dos Santos, Zachary Barnes, Eric Lo, Bryan Ritoper, Lauren Nishizaki, Xavier
Tejeda, Alex Ke, Han Lin, Curt Schurgers, Albert Lin, and Ryan Kastner. 2015. Small unmanned
aerial vehicle system for wildlife radio collar tracking. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS 2014), 761–766. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/MASS.2014.48

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:22 A. Jukan et al.

Ina Draganova, Ian James Yule, Mike James Hedley, Kevin Joseph Stafford, and Kevin Joseph Stafford.
2010. Monitoring dairy cow activity with gps-tracking and supporting technologies. In Proceedings of
International Conference on Precision Agriculture, 2010.
Falko Dressler, Simon Ripperger, Martin Hierold, Thorsten Nowak, Christopher Eibel, Björn Cassens,
Frieder Mayer, Klaus Meyer-wegener, and Alexander Kölpin. 2016. From radio telemetry to ultra-low-
power sensor networks: Tracking bats in the wild. IEEE Communications Magazine January (2016),
129–135. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2016.7378438
Deborah Duran-Herrmann, Dongming Peng, Hamid Sharif, Bing Chen, and Doug Armstrong. 2007. Hierar-
chical character oriented wildlife species recognition through heterogeneous wireless sensor networks.
In Proceedings of IEEE 18th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Commu-
nications (PIMRC’07). DOI:10.1109/PIMRC.2007.4394443
Vladimir Dyo, Stephen a Ellwood, David W. Macdonald, Andrew Markham, Salvatore Scellato, Niki Trigoni,
Ricklef Wohlers, and Kharsim Yousef. 2010. Evolution and sustainability of a wildlife monitoring sensor
network. Wildlife Conservation (2010), 127–140. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1869983.1869997
Vladimir Dyo, Stephen A. Ellwood, David W. Macdonald, Andrew C. Markham, Cecilia Mascolo, Bence
Pásztor, Niki Trigoni, and Ricklef Wohlers. 2009. Poster abstract: Wildlife and environmental monitoring
using RFID and WSN technology. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked
Sensor Systems. 371–372. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1644038.1644107
Vladimir Dyo, Stephen A. Ellwood, David W. Macdonald, Andrew Markham, Niki Trigoni, Ricklef Wohlers,
Cecilia Mascolo, Bence Pásztor, Salvatore Scellato, and Kharsim Yousef. 2012. WILDSENSING: Design
and deployment of a sustainable sensor network for wildlife monitoring. ACM Trans. Sen. Netw. 8, 4
(Sept. 2012), 29:1–29:33. DOI:10.1145/2240116.2240118
Gabriel Hugh Elkaim, Erik B. Decker, Guy Olivery, and Brent Wrightz. 2008. Initial results from an in-situ
environmental monitoring marine mammal tag. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/ION Position, Location
and Navigation Symposium. 912–922. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PLANS.2008.4570033
Andreas Fackelmeier and Erwin M. Biebl. 2009. A multistatic radar array for detecting wild animals during
pasture mowing. In Proceedings of the European Radar Conference (EuRAD’09). 477–480.
Alex Ferworn, Alireza Sadeghian, Kevin Barnum, Hossein Rahnama, Carl Erickson, Devin Ostrom, and
Lucia Dell’Agnese. 2006. Urban search and rescue with canine augmentation technology. In Proceed-
ings of the 2006 IEEE/SMC International Conference on System of Systems Engineering. 5 pages.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2006.1652317
Alex Ferworn, Alireza Sadeghian, Kevin Barnum, Hossein Rahnama, Carl Erickson, Devin Ostrom, and
Lucia Dell’Agnese. 2012. Dog and snake marsupial cooperation for urban search and rescue deployment.
In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics
(SSRR). 1–5. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SSRR.2012.6523887
Susan L. Filan and Robert H. Llewellyn-Jones. 2006. Animal-assisted therapy for dementia: A review
of the literature. International Psychogeriatrics 18, 4 (Dec. 2006), 597–611. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S1041610206003322
Jennifer Golbeck and Carman Neustaedter. 2012. Pet video chat: Monitoring and interacting with dogs over
distance. In Proceedings of Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’12).
ACM, New York, 1425–1426. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2212468
Ying Guo, Peter Corke, Geoff Poulton, Tim Wark, Greg Bishop-Hurley, and Dave Swain. 2006. Animal be-
haviour understanding using wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2006 31st IEEE Conference
on Local Computer Networks. IEEE, 607–614.
Philip J. Harris, Jon. D. Henderson, and Peter N. Schaare. 1998. An ambulatory physiological monitor for
extended use in animal welfare studies. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference of
the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1998, Vol. 4. IEEE, 1917–1920.
Sabrina Hauser, Ron Wakkary, and Carman Neustaedter. 2014. Improving guide dog team play with ac-
cessible dog toys. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’14). ACM, New York, 1537–1542. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1145/2559206.2581316
Zhihai He, Jay Eggert, Wenye Cheng, Xiwen Zhao, Joshua Millspaugh, Remington Moll, Jeff Beringer,
and Joel Sartwell. 2008. Energy-aware portable video communication system design for wildlife ac-
tivity monitoring. IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine 8, 2 (2008), 25–37. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/MCAS.2008.923007
Zhihai He, Roland Kays, Zhi Zhang, Guanghan Ning, Chen Huang, Tony X. Han, Josh Millspaugh, Tavis
Forrester, and William McShea. 2016. Visual informatics tools for supporting large-scale collaborative
wildlife monitoring with citizen scientists. IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine 16, 1 (2016), 73–86.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCAS.2015.2510200

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:23

Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas and Janet C. Read. 2014. Who is really in the center of dog computer design?
In Proceedings of the 2014 Workshops on Advances in Computer Entertainment Conference (ACE’14
Workshops). ACM, New York, Article 2, 5 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2693787.2693793
Jyh How Huang, Ying Yu Chen, Yu Te Huang, Po Yen Lin, Yi Chao Chen, Yi Fu Lin, Shih Ching Yen,
Polly Huang, and Ling Jyh Chen. 2010. Rapid prototyping for wildlife and ecological monitoring. IEEE
Systems Journal 4, 2 (2010), 198–209. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2010.2047294
Jane Hunter, Charles Brooking, Wilfred Brimblecombe, Ross G. Dwyer, Hamish A. Campbell, Matthew E.
Watts, and Craig E. Franklin. 2013. OzTrack-e-infrastructure to support the management, analysis and
sharing of animal tracking data. In Proceedings of the IEEE 9th International Conference on e-Science
(e-Science 2013), 140–147. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/eScience.2013.38
St D. Ilcev and Ivan Skoryk. 2014. Automatic landing of animal tracking lighter-than-air systems (LTAS) on
the recharging platform. In Proceedings of the 24th International Crimean Conference on Microwave and
Telecommunication Technology (CriMiCo’14), 275–277. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CRMICO.2014.
6959391
Siwakorn Jindarat and Pongpisitt Wuttidittachotti. 2015. Smart farm monitoring using Raspberry Pi and
Arduino. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Computer, Communications, and Control
Technology (I4CT). IEEE, 284–288.
Olivia Johnston-Wilder, Clara Mancini, Brendan Aengenheister, Joe Mills, Rob Harris, and Claire Guest.
2015. Sensing the shape of canine responses to cancer. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference
on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE’15). ACM, New York, Article 63, 4 pages.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2837017
Apurva Joshi, Naga VishnuKanth I, Navkar Samdaria, Sumit Bagla, and Prabhat Ranjan. 2008. GPS-less
animal tracking system. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Wireless Communication
and Sensor Networks (WCSN’08), 120–125. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WCSN.2008.4772694
Philo Juang, Hidekazu Oki, Yong Wang, Margaret Martonosi, Li Shiuan Peh, and Daniel Rubenstein. 2002.
Energy-efficient computing for wildlife tracking. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 36, 5 (2002),
96. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/635508.605408
Barbara Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman.
2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering A systematic literature review. Information
and Software Technology 51, 1 (2009), 7–15. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009 Special
Section - Most Cited Articles in 2002 and Regular Research Papers.
Yuichi Komori, Kazuaki Ohno, Takuaki Fujieda, Takahiro Suzuki, and Satoshi Tadokoro. 2015. Detec-
tion of continuous barking actions from search and rescue dogs’ activities data. In Proceedings of
the 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’15). 630–635.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2015.7353438
Sanya Kuankid, Tanadon Rattanawong, and Apinan Aurasopon. 2014. Classification of the cattle’s behaviors
by using accelerometer data with simple behavioral technique. In Proceedings of the 2014 Asia-Pacific
Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA’14). IEEE,
1–4.
Kae Hsiang Kwong, Konstantinos Sasloglou, Hock Guan Goh, Tsung Ta Wu, Bruce Stephen, Michael Gilroy,
Christos Tachtatzis, Ian A. Glover, Craig Michie, and Ivan Andonovic. 2009. Adaptation of wireless sensor
network for farming industries. In Proceedings of the 2009 6th International Conference on Networked
Sensing Systems (INSS’09). IEEE, 1–4.
Cassim Ladha, Nils Hammerla, Emma Hughes, Patrick Olivier, and Thomas Ploetz. 2013. Dog’s life: Wear-
able activity recognition for dogs. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on
Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’13). ACM, New York, 415–418. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1145/2493432.2493519
Gabriella Lakatos. 2016. Dogs as behavior models for companion robots: How can human-dog interactions
assist social robotics? IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 99 (2016), 1–1.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2016.2552244
Sitdhibong Laokok and Urachada Ketprom. 2008. Web services with poultry traceability system. In Proceed-
ings of the 5th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommuni-
cations and Information Technolog (ECTI-CON 2008), Vol. 1. IEEE, 197–200.
Ho-chul Lee and Hyun Yeo. 2010. Design and implimentation of pig farm monitoring system for ubiquitous
agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Information and Communication
Technology Convergence (ICTC). IEEE, 557–558.
Shang Ping Lee, Adrian David Cheok, Teh Keng Soon James, Goh Pae Lyn Debra, Chio Wen Jie, Wang
Chuang, and Farzam Farbiz. 2006. A mobile pet wearable computer and mixed reality system for
human–poultry interaction through the internet. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 10, 5 (2006),
301–317. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0051-6

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:24 A. Jukan et al.

Germain Lemasson, Sylvie Pesty, and Dominique Duhaut. 2013. Increasing communication between a man
and a dog. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 4th International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunica-
tions (CogInfoCom’13). 145–148. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CogInfoCom.2013.6719230
Jianze Li, Junlong Fang, Yongcun Fan, and Changli Zhang. 2010. Design on the monitoring system of physical
characteristics of dairy cattle based on zigbee technology. In World Automation Congress (WAC), 2010.
IEEE, 63–66.
Chen Liu and Xiaojiang Chen. 2011. Demo: Rhinopithecus roxellana monitoring and identification using
wireless sensor networks. Networks 1 (2011), 1–2. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2070942.2071022
Xiaohan Liu, Tao Yang, and Baoping Yan. 2015. Research on the architecture of wildlife observation and com-
munication system. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed
Computing and Knowledge Discovery, 415–418. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CyberC.2015.86
Alvaro Llaria, Guillaume Terrasson, Harbil Arregui, and Amélie Hacala. 2015. Geolocation and monitoring
platform for extensive farming in mountain pastures. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT’15). IEEE, 2420–2425.
Congguo Ma, Yazhou Li, Genwang Yin, and Jianxiang Ji. 2012. The monitoring and information management
system of pig breeding process based on internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2012 5th International
Conference on Information and Computing Science. IEEE, 103–106.
Alan Mainwaring, David Culler, Joseph Polastre, Robert Szewczyk, and John Anderson. 2002. Wireless
sensor networks for habitat monitoring. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on
Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications, 88–97. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/570738.570751
Clara Mancini. 2011. Animal-computer interaction: A manifesto. Interactions 18, 4 (July 2011), 69–73.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978822.1978836
Prateek Mathur, Rasmus H. Nielsen, Neeli R. Prasad, and Ramjee Prasad. 2014. Wildlife conservation
and rail track monitoring using wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2014 4th International
Conference on Wireless Communications, Vehicular Technology, Information Theory and Aerospace and
Electronic Systems (VITAE’14). DOI:10.1109/VITAE.2014.6934504
Ian McCauley, Brett Matthews, Liz Nugent, Andrew Mather, and Julie Simons. 2005. Wired pigs: Ad-hoc
wireless sensor networks in studies of animal welfare. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on
Embedded Networked Sensors. IEEE Computer Society, 29–36. DOI:10.1109/EMNETS.2005.1469096
David W. McClune, Nikki J. Marks, Rory P. Wilson, Jonathan D. R. Houghton, Ian W. Montgomery, Natasha
E. McGowan, Eamonn Gormley, and Michael Scantlebury. 2014. Tri-axial accelerometers quantify be-
haviour in the eurasian badger (meles meles): Towards an automated interpretation of field data. Animal
Biotelemetry 2, 1 (2014), 1–6. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2050-3385-2-5
Robert E. McGrath. 2009. Species-appropriate computer mediated interaction. In Proceedings of the Ex-
tended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’09). ACM, New York, 2529–2534.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520357
Sean Mealin, Mike Winters, Ignacio X. Domı́nguez, Michelle Marrero-Garcı́a, Alper Bozkurt, Barbara L.
Sherman, and David L. Roberts. 2015. Towards the non-visual monitoring of canine physiology in
real-time by blind handlers. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Com-
puter Entertainment Technology (ACE’15). ACM, New York, Article 66, 8 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1145/2832932.2837018
Shadreck K. Mudziwepasi and Mfundo S. Scott. 2014. Assessment of a wireless sensor network based
monitoring tool for zero effort technologies: A cattle-health and movement monitoring test case. In
Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 6th International Conference on Adaptive Science & Technology (ICAST).
IEEE, 1–6.
L. Nagl, R. Schmitz, Steve Warren, T. S. Hildreth, Howard Erickson, and Daniel Andresen. 2003. Wearable
sensor system for wireless state-of-health determination in cattle. In Proceeding of the 25th Annual
International Conference of the IEEE EMBS, Vol. 4. 3012–3015.
Keijiro Nakagawa, Hiroki Kobayashi, and Kaoru Sezaki. 2014. Carrier pigeon-like sensing system. In Pro-
ceedings of the 5th International Conference on Augmented Human (AH’14). 1–2. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1145/2582051.2582078
M. S. Nakandala, S. S. Namasivayam, D. P. Chandima, and Lanka Udawatta. 2014. Detecting wild ele-
phants via WSN for early warning system. In Proceedings of the 2014 7th International Conference
onInformation and Automation for Sustainability (ICIAfS’14).
M. Z. H. Noor, M. A. A. Ahmed, E. H. Mat Saat, M. F. Saaid, and M. S. A. Megat Ali. 2013. Temperature
distribution between fully-controlled and semi-controlled rabbit cage environment. In Proceedings of the
2013 IEEE 4th Control and System Graduate Research Colloquium (ICSGRC). IEEE, 111–115.
Chutchada Nusai, Wiruntita Chankeaw, and B. Sangkaew. 2015. Dairy cow-vet: A mobile expert system
for disease diagnosis of dairy cow. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on
System Integration (SII’15). IEEE, 690–695.

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:25

Yu Oishi and Tsuneo Matsunaga. 2010. Automatic detection of moving wild animals. In Proceedings of the
2010 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS’10). 517–519.
Wlodek Olesinski, Pawel Gburzynski, and Ioanis Nikolaidis. 2007. Fuzzy inferno and nostalgic cow: Two
practical applications for ad-hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 2007 4th International Conference on
Networked Sensing Systems. IEEE, 294–294.
Mikko Paldanius, Tuula Kärkkäinen, Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, Oskar Juhlin, and Jonna Häkkilä.
2011. Communication technology for human-dog interaction: Exploration of Dog owners’ experiences
and expectations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI’11). ACM, New York, 2641–2650. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979329
Doug Palmer, Geoff James, and Peter Corke. 2004. ElectricCow: A simulator for mobile sensors and actuators
mounted on herds of cattle. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE International Conference on Local
Computer Networks. IEEE, 556–557.
Zhihui Peng and Juan Su. 2012. Remote wireless monitoring embedded system design and implementation in
the nature reserve. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational and Information
Sciences, 1159–1162. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCIS.2012.220
Gian Pietro Picco, Davide Molteni, Amy L. Murphy, Federico Ossi, Francesca Cagnacci, Michele Corrà,
and Sandro Nicoloso. 2015. Geo-referenced proximity detection of wildlife with wildscope: Design and
characterization. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor
Networks, 238–249. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2737095.2737103
Patricia Pons, Javier Jaen, and Alejandro Catala. 2014. Animal ludens: Building intelligent playful envi-
ronments for animals. In Proceedings of the 2014 Workshops on Advances in Computer Entertainment
Conference (ACE’14), 1–6. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2693787.2693794
Patricia Pons, Javier Jaen, and Alejandro Catala. 2015. Developing a depth-based tracking system for
interactive playful environments with animals. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference
on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE’15). ACM, New York, Article 59, 8 pages.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2837007
Ahmad Poursaberi, Claudia Bahr, Arno Pluk, Daniel Berckmans, Imbi Veermäe, Eugen Kokin, and Väino
Pokalainen. 2011. Online lameness detection in dairy cattle using body movement pattern (BMP). In
Proceedings of the 2011 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications
(ISDA). IEEE, 732–736.
Klaus Pourvoyeur, Andreas Stelzer, and Gerald Gassenbauer. 2006. The local position measurement system
LPM used for cow tracking. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor
Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems. IEEE, 536–540.
Ion Emilian Radoi, Janek Mann, and D. K. Arvind. 2015. Tracking and monitoring horses in the
wild using wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 11th International Confer-
ence on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob’15), 732–739.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WiMOB.2015.7348035
Jean-Loup Rault, Sarah Webber, and Marcus Carter. 2015a. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on animal wel-
fare science and animal-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference
on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE’15). ACM, New York, Article 56, 5 pages.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2837014
Jean-Loup Rault, Sarah Webber, and Marcus Carter. 2015b. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on animal wel-
fare science and animal-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference
on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE’15). ACM, New York, Article 56, 5 pages.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2837014
Cristina Ribeiro, Alex Ferworn, Mieso Denko, James Tran, and Chris Mawson. 2008. Wireless estimation
of canine pose for search and rescue. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on System of
Systems Engineering (SoSE’08). 1–6. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2008.4724172
Cristina Ribeiro, Alex Ferworn, Mieso Denko, James Tran, and Chris Mawson. 2009. An assessment of a
wireless mesh network performance for urban search and rescue task. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE
Toronto International Conference on Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH’09). 369–374.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIC-STH.2009.5444474
Charlotte Robinson, Clara Mancini, Janet van der Linden, Claire Guest, Lydia Swanson, Helen
Marsden, Jose Valencia, and Brendan Aengenheister. 2015. Designing an emergency communication
system for human and assistance dog partnerships. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International
Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’15). ACM, New York, 337–347.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2805849
Charlotte L. Robinson, Clara Mancini, Janet van der Linden, Claire Guest, and Robert Harris. 2014.
Canine-centered interface design: Supporting the work of diabetes alert dogs. In Proceedings of the

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
10:26 A. Jukan et al.

SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, 3757–3766.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557396
Corneliu Rusu. 2014. A sparsogram coding procedure for wildlife intruder detection. In Proceedings
of the 2014 6th International Symposium on Communications, Control and Signal Processing
(ISCCSP’14).
Matthew Rutisha, Vladislav Petkov, Jay Boice, Katia Obraczka, Patrick Mantey, Terrie M. Williams, and
Christopher C. Wilmers. 2011. Research article CARNIVORE: A disruption-tolerant system for studying
wildlife. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 2011 (Jan. 2011), Article No.
10. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/968046
Sanat Sarangi, Akshat Bisht, Vijay Rao, Subrat Kar, Tushar Kumar Mohanty, and Anand Prakash Ruhil.
2014. Development of a wireless sensor network for animal management: Experiences with moosense. In
Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommuncations
Systems (ANTS’14). IEEE, 1–6.
Mac Schwager, Dean M. Anderson, Zack Butler, and Daniela Rus. 2007. Robust classification of animal
tracking data. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 56, 1 (2007), 46–59.
Arne Sieber, Alexandra Nafari, Rainer Konrad, Peter Enoksson, and Matthias Wagner. 2012. Wireless plat-
form for monitoring of physiological parameters of cattle. In Smart Sensing Technology for Agriculture
and Environmental Monitoring. Springer, 135–156.
Janice M. Siegford, John Berezowski, Subir K. Biswas, Courtney L. Daigle, Sabine G. Gebhardt-Henrich,
Carlos E. Hernandez, Stefan Thurner, and Michael J. Toscano. 2016. Assessing activity and loca-
tion of individual laying hens in large groups using modern technology. Animals 6, 2 (2016), 10.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani6020010
Yang Song, Yu Xi Liu, and Ming Hao Gu. 2011. Design of new electrical collar based on the technology
of zigbee. In Proceedings of the 2011 4th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and
Design (ISCID’11), 372–376. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISCID.2011.100
Su Lim Tan, Nguyen Ha Duy, Jesús Garcı́a-Guzmán, and Francisco Garcı́a-Orduña. 2011. A wireless activity
monitoring system for monkey behavioural study. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Consumer Electronics (ISCE’11), 40–45. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISCE.2011.5973779
Ricardo Tapiador-Morales, Antonio Rios-Navarro, Angel Jimenez-Fernandez, Juan Pedro Dominguez-
Morales, and Alejandro Linares-Barranco. 2015. System based on inertial sensors for behavioral mon-
itoring of wildlife. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Computer, Information and
Telecommunication Systems (CITS’15) (2015). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CITS.2015.7297759
Eranda Tennakoon and Charith Madusanka. 2015. Sensor-based breakage detection for electric fences. In
Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS’15), 4–7.
A. Tovar, T. Friesen, K. Ferens, and B. McLeod. 2010. A DTN wireless sensor network for wildlife habi-
tat monitoring. In Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCECE.2010.5575142
Jimmy Tran, Martin Gerdzhev, and Alexander Ferworn. 2010. Continuing progress in augmenting ur-
ban search and rescue Dogs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Wireless Communications
and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC’10). ACM, New York, 784–788. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1145/1815396.1815576
David Tranfield, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14, 3
(2003), 207–222. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Sandra Upson. 2008. Loser: Social networking—Social networking goes to the Dogs. IEEE Spectrum 45, 1
(Jan. 2008), 55–56. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2008.4428317
Giancarlo Valentin, Joelle Alcaidinho, Ayanna Howard, Melody M. Jackson, and Thad Starner. 2015. Towards
a canine-human communication system based on head gestures. In Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE’15). ACM, New York, Article 65,
9 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2837016
Federico Viani, Fabrizio Robol, Enrico Giarola, Guido Benedetti, Stefano De Vigili, and Andrea Massa. 2014.
Advances in wildlife road-crossing early-alert system: New architecture and experimental validation.
In Proceedings of teh 8th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP’14), 3457–3461.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EuCAP.2014.6902572
Federico Viani, Paolo Rocca, Leonardo Lizzi, Michele Rocca, Guido Benedetti, and Andrea Massa. 2011.
WSN-based early alert system for preventing wildlife-vehicle collisions in Alps regions. In Proceedings
of the 2011 IEEE-APS Topical Conference on Antennas and Propagation in Wireless Communications
(APWC’11), 106–109. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/APWC.2011.6046747

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.
Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review 10:27

Steve Warren, Luke Nagl, Ryan Schmitz, Jianchu Yao, Tammi Hildreth, Howard Erickson, David Poole, and
Daniel Andresen. 2003. A distributed infrastructure for veterinary telemedicine. In Proceedings of the
25th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vol. 2.
IEEE, 1394–1397.
Lai Wei, Golrokh Mirzaei, Mohammad W. Majid, Mohsin M. Jamali, Jeremy Ross, Peter V. Gorsevski, and
Verner P. Bingman. 2014. Birds/Bats movement tracking with IR camera for wind farm applications. In
Proceedings of The 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems. Melbourne, Australia.
Alexandra Weilenmann and Oskar Juhlin. 2011. Understanding people and animals: The use of a positioning
system in ordinary human-canine interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). ACM, New York, 2631–2640. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/110.1145/
1978942.979328
Zhu Weixing and Wu Zhilei. 2010. Detection of porcine respiration based on machine vision. In Proceedings
of the 2010 3rd International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling (KAM’10). IEEE,
398–401.
Bartosz Wietrzyk and Milena Radenkovic. 2007. Energy efficiency in the mobile ad hoc networking approach
to monitoring farm animals. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Networking (ICN’07).
Bartosz Wietrzyk and Milena Radenkovic. 2009. Enabling large scale ad hoc animal welfare monitoring. In
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications (ICWMC’09).
IEEE, 401–409.
Bartosz Wietrzyk, Milena Radenkovic, and Ivaylo Kostadinov. 2008. Practical MANETs for pervasive cattle
monitoring. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networking (ICN’08). IEEE, 14–23.
Michael Winters, Rita Brugarolas, John Majikes, Sean Mealin, Sherrie Yuschak, Barbara Sherman, Alper
Bozkurt, and David Roberts. 2015b. Knowledge engineering for unsupervised canine posture detection
from IMU data. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Enter-
tainment Technology 2015. Iskandar, Malaysia.
Michael Winters, Rita Brugarolas, John Majikes, Sean Mealin, Sherrie Yuschak, Barbara L. Sherman,
Alper Bozkurt, and David Roberts. 2015a. Knowledge engineering for unsupervised canine posture
detection from IMU data. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Com-
puter Entertainment Technology (ACE’15). ACM, New York, Article 60, 8 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1145/2832932.2837015
Clint Zeagler, Scott Gilliland, Larry Freil, Thad Starner, and Melody Jackson. 2014. Going to the Dogs:
Towards an interactive touchscreen interface for working dogs. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual
ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’14). ACM, New York, 497–507.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647364
Hui-yi Zhang, Jia-xin Li, Zhi-xiang Yuan, Hui Shen, Qi-ding Cao, Ya-fei Gao, and Xiao-yong Zhang. 2012.
Design of pig farm environmental parameters monitoring system based on wireless sensor networks.
In Proceedings of the 2012 3rd International Conference on System Science, Engineering Design and
Manufacturing Informatization (ICSEM’12), Vol. 1. IEEE, 332–335.
Le Zhang. 2011. An IOT system for environmental monitoring and protecting with heterogeneous
communication networks. In Proceedings of the 2011 6th International ICST Conference on Com-
munications and Networking in China (CHINACOM’11), 1026–1031. DOI:http://dx.oi.org/d10.1109/
ChinaCom.2011.6158307
Teng Zhang, Arnold Wiliem, Graham Hemsont, and Brian C. Lovell. 2015. Detecting kangaroos in the wild:
The first step towards automated animal surveillance. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference
on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP’15). Queensland, Australia.
Thomas Zimmerman, Britta Muiznieks, Eric Kaplan, Samuel Wantman, Lou Browning, and Eric Frey. 2014.
Design and field testing of a system for remote monitoring of sea turtle nests. In Proceedings of the 16th
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 637–642.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628432
Reinholds Zviedris, Atis Elsts, Girts Strazdins, Artis Mednis, and Leo Selavo. 2010. LynxNet: Wild animal
monitoring using sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Real-World Wire-
less Sensor Networks at the Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 6511. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
170–173.

Received October 2016; revised December 2016; accepted January 2017

ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 50, No. 1, Article 10, Publication date: April 2017.