Comparing behavioral risk assessment strategies for quantifying biosecurity compliance to mitigate animal disease spread.

Understanding the impact of human behavior on the spread of disease is critical in mitigating outbreak severity. We designed an experimental game that emulated worker decision-making in a swine facility during an outbreak. In order to combat contamination, the simulation features a line-of-separation biosecurity protocol. Participants are provided disease severity information and can choose whether or not to comply with a shower protocol. Each simulated decision carried the potential for either an economic cost or an opportunity cost, both of which affected their potential real-world earnings. Participants must weigh the risk infection vs. an opportunity cost associated with compliance. Participants then completed a multiple price list (MPL) risk assessment survey. The survey uses a context-free, paired-lottery approach in which one of two options may be selected, with varying probabilities of a high and low risk payouts. We compared game response data to MPL risk assessment. Game risk was calculated using the normalized frequency of biosecurity compliance. Three predominant strategies were identified: risk averse participants who had the highest rate of compliance; risk tolerant participants who had the lowest compliance rate; and opportunists who adapted their strategy depending on disease risk. These findings were compared to the proportion of risk averse choices observed within the MPL and were classified into 3 categories: risk averse, risk tolerant and neutral. We found weak positive correlation between risk measured in our experimental game compared to the MPL. However, risk averse classified participants in the MPL tended to comply with the biosecurity protocol more often than those classified as risk tolerant. We also found that the behavioral risk clusters and categorization