Research objective	Rational	Quantitative Scores						Total average (StDev)	Variance Coefficient
		1. Impact on ASF management	2. Feasibility or practicality	3. Potential implementation in practice	4. Short timeframe	5. Novelty	6. Priority for risk managers*
1 Comparative study of monthly ASF herd incidence risk in 2020 between EU member states
Low	Already addressed, though not for all countries	1.0
Low	Unclear what will be the resulting management measure			1.0
Low	No rationale reported					1.0
Medium	Important because pigs are key commercial hosts, but wild boar are not included.	3.0
Medium	Monitoring herd incidence will inform you about stage of epidemic, but does not help much in management decisions on wild boar	3.0
Medium	No rationale reported	3.0		3.0		3.0
High	Apparently, there are not comparative studies among MS					5.0
High	Current practice in veterinary services		5.0
High	Should be easy to calculate		5.0
High	Sound results can be obtained in a year				5.0
High	This can be easily implemented in the current ASF control measures			5.0
High	No rationale reported		5.0		5.0		5.0
Average score of experts for criterion ((StDev)		2.5 (0.9)	5.0 (0)	3.0 (1.6)	5.0 (0)	3 (1.6)	5.0 (0)	3.6 (1.5)	0.43
2. Harmonised case–control studies in pig herds for seasonal risk factor involving several ASF‐affected countries.
Low	Done for selected countries					1.0
Low	Only on smaller regional or MS level					1.0
Medium	This is a costly study, need to probably be based on case–control study in different countries		3.0
Medium	Is already done for selected countries	3.0
Medium	Selection of farms is feasible as well as the study of risk factors, but complexity may be limiting factor		3.0
Medium	No rationale reported		3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0
High	High importance. Knowledge of risk factors will help in preventing them	5.0		5.0
High	Important to avoid introduction of ASF in farms and to estimate seasonal risk	5.0
High	No similar studies are available among affected countries. Some are available at country level (i.e. Romania)					5.0
High	The study can lead to sound results in one year in ASF EU affected areas				5.0
High	Useful to set up biosecurity in different types of farms			5.0
High	No rationale reported	5.0			5.0		5.0
Average score of experts for criterion (StDev)		4.5 (0.9)	3.0 (0)	4.0 (1)	4.0 (1)	2.5 (1.7)	5.0 (0)	3.6 (1.3)	0.36
3. Study of ASF seasonal pattern in association with socio‐cultural activities
Low	Difficult to define a priori what social activities are relevant for AHS persistence/dispersal		1.0
Low	Only on smaller regional or MS level					1.0
Low	Very difficult to show relation in only one year. Long‐term studies will be needed				1.0
Low	No rationale reported	1.0	1.0	1.0		1.0
Medium	Costly study, need to probably be based on case–control study in different countries		3.0
Medium	Difficult to implement a field level due to the variety of social activities and to determine its relevancy. Managing of social activities seems also difficult.			3.0
Medium	High importance. Knowledge of risk factors will help in preventing them			3.0
Medium	Just when related to animal movement. The other social activities may have little impact on the spread or persistence of the disease	3.0
Medium	No rationale reported		3.0	3.0	3.0		3.0
High	High importance. Knowledge of risk factors will help in preventing them	5.0
High	No similar studies are available among affected countries. Some are available at country level (i.e. Romania)					5.0
High	No rationale reported	5.0			5.0	5.0
Average scores of experts for criterion (StDev)		3.5 (1.7)	2.0 (1)	2.5 (0.9)	3.0 (1.4)	3.0 (2)	3.0 (0)	2.8 (1.5)	0.53

StDev: standard deviations. Low score = 1 point; Medium score = 3 points; Large = 5 points. *: only one expert attending the working group represented the risk managers and scored Score 6.