Activity budget comparisons between groups or individuals in the wild and those in captivity are commonly used to determine the range of wild-type behaviors that nonhuman animals in captivity perform. These comparisons are conducted with the view that individuals displaying a greater range of wild-type behaviors have enhanced welfare. Such comparisons have a greater appeal when it comes to primates because increased levels of anthropomorphism toward primates lead to welfare concerns. However, the validity of such comparisons has not been assessed. From the reviewed literature, some of the main complexities identified when defining “good welfare” using activity budgets were the ideas of behavioral motivation and adaptation, obstacles when using the wild as a benchmark for good welfare, study methods causing possible variances in behavior, and social and environmental factors. It is proposed that such influencing factors would be controlled for adequately in future studies with the use of multiple indices to measure welfare and methods that infer positive emotional states. It is hoped we can then build evidence of an animal’s emotional state and allow welfare to be inferred to a higher degree.

野外群体和被圈养者之间活动预算的比较通常用于确定圈养非人类动物所表现出的野生型行为的范围。进行这些比较的观点是，表现出更大范围的野生型行为的个体具有增强的福利。这样的比较在灵长类动物方面具有更大的吸引力，因为对灵长类动物的拟人化程度提高会导致福利问题。但是，这种比较的有效性尚未得到评估。从回顾的文献中，使用活动预算定义“良好福利”时发现的一些主要复杂性包括行为动机和适应的观念，将野生环境作为良好福利的基准时遇到的障碍，导致行为可能出现差异的研究方法，以及社会和环境因素。建议在未来的研究中，通过使用多个指数来衡量福利和推断积极情绪状态的方法，可以充分控制这些影响因素。希望我们随后能够建立动物情绪状态的证据，并允许更高程度地推断出福利。