animal husbandry), it was argued that the system would have to be made compulsory. The source of compensation was not considered to be an influential factor; with keepers suggesting that they would generally be no more likely to adopt higher biosecurity standards or report disease quicker if the costs were covered fully or partly by the industry, than if compensation payments were met fully by the state. The main way that a levy system was thought to have the ability to lead to more positive disease management responses was through having the potential to increase industry engagement and raise awareness of the compensation system among animal keepers. At the same time, the issue of fairness was consistently raised by animal keepers throughout the interviews and focus groups, whereby any cost-sharing scheme would need to reflect shared responsibility, with government being seen to be ‘playing their part’ in disease risk control. The findings suggest that feelings of fairness concerning compensation are likely to influence industry support, which in turn may have an impact on individual keeper buy-in to such a scheme. For the levy system scenario to be attractive, animal keepers argued that payments would need to be differentiated by individual risk, rather than at the sector, system or geographical level, for example. Such a system was perceived to be more likely to lead to positive behavioural outcomes due to the immediate, visible financial impacts on individuals.

## Discussion

This paper provides qualitative insight into the perceived influence of compensation on exotic disease management. Surveyed animal keepers felt that their actions were being influenced by a range of factors, including animal welfare, responsibility, risk perception and reputation. In line with the conclusions of Enticott and Lee (2015) the findings reported here suggest that current compensation systems have a limited perceived influence and impact on the disease management behaviour of animal keepers due to a lack of awareness. This may have prompted keepers to more readily cite other non-financial factors as more important in their decision making around exotic disease management. Animal keepers did, however, consider compensation to be important in guarding against adverse impacts such as hiding of disease and lack of or delayed reporting. The potential for negative consequences should be incorporated into any assessments of the costs and benefits associated with potential changes to compensation systems. This is particularly the case in light of Gramig and others’ (2009) assertion that compensation should be less than 100 per cent to ensure farmers have a stronger financial interest in preventing an outbreak. Veterinarians perceived a penalty approach to most likely be more effective. This supports the conclusion reached by Bocqueho and others (2014) study of farmers in eastern France, which suggested farmers are more inclined to act out of fear of losing something (e.g. financial loss/penalty) (Weiner 1980, Davis 1995); hence suggesting that framing the outcome of a system as a ‘potential loss’ might promote risk aversion amongst animal keepers in the case of practicing appropriate exotic disease management. In contrast to veterinarians, animal keepers in this study expressed preference for a bonus system due to its positive connotations. Previous work by Burton and others (2008) has identified the tendency for farmers to support schemes that enable demonstration of one's own ability, that is, earned recognition. The general concept of earned recognition and its potential benefits on behaviour have already been touched upon (see Angus and others 2013, Defra 2013, Jones and Gosling 2013) and are supported by animal keepers in this study. In general, participants frequently distinguished between animal keepers with ‘good’ or ‘bad practice’ (see Naylor and others 2016); and based on the qualitative findings reported here, these groups may respond differently to different compensation systems. A bonus system encompassing some form of earned recognition may be more likely to influence the ‘good’ animal keepers, while