When it comes to protecting livestock from devastating diseases, simply telling people what to do may not be enough.
A new review led by a researcher from the University of Vermont and collaborators from two institutions in Australia suggests that improving farm biosecurity requires something often overlooked in animal health: understanding how humans make decisions. The study, published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, examined nearly two decades of global research on efforts to encourage farmers and livestock caretakers to adopt disease prevention practices.
The findings reveal a surprising gap. While scientists and agricultural leaders have spent years identifying biosecurity practices that can help prevent disease outbreaks, relatively few studies have tested how to motivate people to inspire them to actually adopt the measures.
"Biosecurity isn't just a technical challenge. It's a behavior change challenge," said lead author Dr. Julia M. Smith of the University of Vermont's Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences and Social Ecological Gaming and Simulation Lab. "If we want people to consistently use biosecurity measures, we need to understand what motivates action, what creates barriers, and what types of interventions truly work."
The international research team analyzed studies conducted between 2008 and 2024 across livestock industries including poultry, swine, cattle, and sheep production. Out of 699 records initially identified, only 33 publications met the criteria for evaluating interventions specifically designed to improve biosecurity behavior. Those 33 publications represented 41 separate studies.
The review uncovered a pattern: educational programs dominate the biosecurity landscape. Training sessions, workshops, information campaigns, surveys, audits, and action plans were the most common approaches used to encourage adoption of disease prevention practices.
But researchers found that education alone often falls short.
"Knowledge matters, but it's only one piece of the puzzle," Smith said. "People may know the right thing to do and still face obstacles such as cost, time constraints, social pressures, infrastructure limitations, or uncertainty about whether a practice will actually make a difference."
The team examined biosecurity interventions through the lens of the well-known COM-B behavior change framework.
Their analysis found that most programs focused on increasing knowledge and awareness, while relatively few addressed other powerful drivers of behavior, such as incentives, social norms, habits, environmental conditions, and practical barriers.
One of the study's more intriguing observations is that even asking people questions about their practices may influence behavior. Researchers proposed a new category within existing behavior-change frameworks called "questioning/observing," recognizing that surveys, assessments, audits, and observations may themselves encourage individuals to think differently about their actions.
The study also highlights innovative research emerging from UVM's Social Ecological Gaming and Simulation Lab, where experimental simulations allow researchers to explore how people respond to disease risks, social pressures, and biosecurity messaging in realistic but controlled environments. These simulations offer a way to study decision-making that would be difficult, expensive, or even impossible to test during real-world disease outbreaks.
The stakes for the world are high. Effective biosecurity helps protect animals and people from diseases such as avian influenza, African swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, and salmonella while supporting food security, farm profitability, and agricultural resilience.
The authors argue that future biosecurity programs should borrow more heavily from behavioral science, social science, communication, education, and systems thinking. They also recommend that researchers more clearly document exactly what interventions they use, why they chose them, and how they expect them to change behavior.
Why this matters: If the goal is healthier animals, stronger farms, and ultimately a safer planet for people, the solution should probably begin with understanding human behavior.
"Biosecurity recommendations only matter if they are put into practice," Smith said. "By combining animal health expertise with insights from behavioral psychology, we can design interventions that are more effective, more practical, and ultimately more successful at preventing disease, which should be a priority for both science and society."
