All interviews and focus group discussions were facilitated by experienced social science researchers. This was important given the sensitive nature of the research. Participants were made aware of the purpose of the research and were assured of confidentiality, and all signed a form to give their consent for participation. Data collected from both the interviews and focus group discussions were analysed using the qualitative analysis software, NVivo. Following an initial reading of transcripts and multiple meetings with all members of the research team, a coding framework (identifying key themes) was devised and reviewed before analysis, in order to ensure validity. During coding and analysis, further themes emerged from these data, and an iterative approach to the analysis was taken (see Welsh 2002 for further detail).

## Results Views on the influence of current and past compensation systems

Surveyed animal keepers across sectors were generally unaware of current compensation systems for exotic diseases, beyond the general recognition that some form of recompense existed. There were incorrect assumptions made amongst surveyed animal keepers that full compensation would always be received and would also cover consequential losses, such as loss of production. The compensation system concerning reductions in payment based on disease status of animals at the time of culling (e.g. in the case of pig fever and AI) were unknown to the pig and poultry sector interviewees, and thus the idea of compensation was rarely considered to have an influence on the speed of reporting at the time. Instead, in retrospect, animal welfare, feelings of responsibility to other animal keepers and the wider industry, and risk perception were perceived to be the most significant factors driving early reporting, as demonstrated by the following quotes:

“I don't think [compensation is] relevant really. I think when you're faced with something like [African Horse Sickness] that the first thing you want to do is eradicate the disease.” (Horse keeper) “The compensation never entered my head really. I mean once we had fought from our end to try and stop the disease getting onto our farm, our main concern after that was to try and help other local farmers.” (Sheep keeper with experience of FMD)

Despite the limited perceived influence of compensation, concerns were raised over the negative impact on disease reporting if compensation was reduced. Participants suggested that if animal keepers were made fully aware of reductions or lack of compensation available, perverse impacts may result, such as hiding suspicious cases, and delayed reporting. This view was shared by animal keepers and veterinarians. The following quotes reflect this:

“We want to control it and this is a very good reason why we [the Government] pay compensation… the amount of people that won't declare their suspicions if we didn't pay compensation, lots of people wouldn't report [it]” (APHA veterinarian) “If I knew that there was no compensation and I was going to lose my herd then I would try and keep it under wraps to survive. Blow everybody else, at the end of the day I want to try and stay in business … If I could still market animals without being noticed, although I might be the black sheep amongst pig producers, I would still be in business because I still have something to sell.” (Pig keeper)