nine sector-specific focus groups (two per sector for cattle, sheep, pig and poultry and one for equine) were held in a range of geographical locations across England and were each attended by 8– 12 animal keepers, selected through existing contacts and industry gatekeepers. The focus groups lasted between two hours and three hours, whilst interviews lasted approximately one hour, and all discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviewees with past disease experience were asked to recount in detail how they felt compensation available at the time had influenced their exotic disease management, including the speed of reporting suspicion. All animal keepers were asked to discuss their past and current approaches to biosecurity both in terms of routine practice and during disease outbreaks (if applicable). In the process, the factors which were perceived to influence their disease management practices (including and in addition to compensation) were identified and explored. Discussions revolved around their perception of the role that compensation played in their practices at the time of disease outbreak (where applicable) and the potential influence that both the current and alternative compensation systems may have on keepers’ responses to future outbreaks. Interview and focus group discussions yielded in-depth and contextualised accounts of participants’ views towards the role of compensation and enabled the exploration of other factors that may influence decision making during an outbreak. These social data are a valuable addition to the evidence base, offering opportunities to triangulate these accounts with existing quantitative data sets and economic modelling. To explore the perceived influence of alternative compensation systems on animal keeper disease management behaviour, interviewees and focus group participants were presented with a series of compensation scenarios. Scenarios have been widely used in the social sciences for their ability to represent a realistic decision-making situation and a range of intervention mechanisms (Soleri and Cleveland 2005, Quine and others 2011, Naylor and others 2014). The three compensation systems presented to participants were as follows: (a) the current system of compensation, (b) a system based on bonuses for good behaviour or a system based on penalties for poor behaviour, and (c) a levy system representing government and industry cost sharing. For the bonus-based and penalty- based systems, the scenarios were designed to represent different framings of a single system; one with positive connotations and one with negative connotations. The fact that the impact of a message can be manipulated by emphasising the benefits or costs associated with a particular behaviour is well recognised across behavioural studies (Tversky and Kahneman 1981, Rothman and Salovey 1997). Furthermore, a case study formed the third scenario, describing details of a system based on cost-sharing in the form of levy payments. The scenarios were co-developed in collaboration with Defra and were also informed by the research objectives and early findings of the rapid evidence assessment process. They were adapted to ensure applicability to each livestock sector, and are outlined in detail in the results section of the paper. Each scenario was presented to participants simultaneously during interviews and focus group discussions. Participants were asked to give their initial reactions to each scenario and to consider what they would do in each situation; what factors would likely influence what they decided to do; and what they believed other animal keepers would do in terms of their exotic disease management practices. Veterinarians were presented with the same scenarios and asked for their opinion on how animal keepers might respond. The reactions to each scenario were recorded and key differences between animal keepers and veterinarians were identified. While scenarios have been shown to be a useful method to ascertain realistic insights into how individuals would respond to a particular situation, it is important to note that the results reported here are based on participants’ opinions on what they would do rather than a reflection of actual behaviour.