Introduction

There has been an unprecedented increase in extreme and adverse weather events [1], a staggering loss of biodiversity amounting to the Sixth Mass Extinction [2], a decline in quality of water [3] and air [4], an increase in world hunger [5]. The numerous direct and indirect impacts of human activities would likely result in scientists officially announcing the start of a new epoch (the Anthropocene era) to denote the impact human beings have had on the earth’s ecosystems [6]. As a result, there is an urgent need for innovative solutions that help mitigate the effects of human activities such as land use and climate change, while also assisting society to adapt to current and future situations.

Nature itself is increasingly being viewed as one of the most important assets to mitigate the effects of climate change [1]. The concept of ecosystem services as a means to raise awareness to the benefits of the ecological environment to human society was devised in the late 1970s and early 1980s [7, 8]. However, the increasing threat of climate change has accelerated the need to understand how anthropogenic management of landscapes might affect the functioning of the natural environment [9].

Small landscape features (LF) have long since been considered important elements of such ecosystem services. Small LFs are defined as ‘small fragments of non-productive natural or semi-natural vegetation in agricultural landscapes which provide ecosystem services and support for biodiversity [10]. Examples include hedges, ponds, individual trees, trees in lines or groups, field margins and stone or earth walls [10, 11]. LFs have numerous functional uses, such as the provision of windbreaks and shelter for livestock, regulation of, and protection from, soil erosion, management of water quantity and quality, enhancement of air quality, CO2 sequestration, as well as the maintenance and protection of biodiversity [9, 11–16].

In the EU, around 45% of land cover is occupied by agriculture [10], meaning that many of the efforts to protect, maintain, restore and create LFs have been integrated into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This was meant to be achieved by a number of legal requirements covered in several regulations, rural development programmes and greening measures, which included the creation and retention of Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) [11]. In order to acknowledge agricultural, ecological and cultural differences, EU Member States were able to determine which types of areas to include in their national EFAs, in order to convert at least 10% of agricultural area into high-diversity landscape features by 2030 [17]. However, despite the undeniable significance of LFs in preserving biodiversity and ecosystems, member states exhibited hesitancy in incorporating landscape features as EFAs, favouring options such as green cover, catch crops, and fallow fields instead [10, 11]. Consequently, LFs currently account for less than 2% of the total EFA area at the EU level [10]. It seems clear that more concerted efforts are needed to accelerate the integration of LFs across Europe [10, 18].

Up until now, the equine sector has largely been overlooked as a player in the current agro-ecological transition [19, 20]. In part, this may be due to differences in the legal definition of horses in different countries, which depend on their definition of purpose, i.e. leisure, companionship, sport, therapy, agriculture, forestry and more [21]. However, regardless of their legal designation, the keeping and management of horses may offer considerable environmental benefits. Recent research has identified five ‘Green assets’ [20], including Equine grazing, domestic biodiversity, land use, tourism and equine work. As highlighted by Rzekęć et al., [20], due to their physiological and ethological needs, horse keeping is generally associated with considerable land use. In fact, across the EU, the land coverage associated with horses is estimated at six million hectares of primarily permanent grassland [22]. Not surprisingly, therefore, the limited research efforts that have been undertaken, have largely focused on the equine industry in terms of grassland management [19, 20, 23–25]. As opposed to grassland in an agricultural setting, equine grassland is largely non-productive and may provide ecosystem services more commonly associated with LFs. Furthermore, it stands to reason that equine properties offer considerable potential regarding the integration of different types of LFs. After all, much of the traditional uses of LFs, i.e., to offer shelter from the elements, provide additional feed sources, or be used as means of enclosure, or for the separation of different fields, continue to be appropriate ecosystem services to horse owners in their efforts to provide horses with management systems that safeguard their health and welfare [24, 26–28].

The Netherlands is considered one of the most prolific equestrian nations worldwide. With approximately 450,000 riders and 500,000 horses, equestrianism is considered one of the most popular sports [29]. Previous research suggested that these horses are kept at approximately 81,000 locations [30], of which 10,000 are businesses such as livery yards, riding schools, as well as breeding and training stables. The rest are likely to be private locations where horses are kept either at home, or on privately rented land. Considering that the Netherlands is confronted with a combination of spatial restrictions, a prominent agricultural sector and stringent EU requirements regarding the protection and restoration of biodiversity resources [31, 32], the equine sector may likely play an important role in the preservation and improvement of land-based biodiversity levels through the integration of LFs.

In order to determine the biodiversity potential of equine land use it is important to gain an overview of the prevalence, types and area coverage of LFs across different types of equine yards. Increasingly, studies aimed at collecting environmental data with extensive geographical coverage rely on the involvement of volunteers to gather data [33–35]. Considering the logistical, organisational, and financial challenges in conducting a traditional data collection study across the different types of equine yards, such a citizen science approach was considered an effective way of gathering data. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to gauge the presence, frequency and geometric properties of LFs on private and commercial equine yards, including in relation to property size, across the Netherlands, drawing on the active participation of yard owners.

Method

Survey design

In order to engage as many yard owners as possible across the Netherlands, a cross-sectional study design was used, targeting Dutch private horse owners who kept their horses at home, as well as commercial equine yard owners who managed their own land. The survey included a total of 152 questions in Dutch and was designed in the online survey tool Survey Monkey.

In the first part, participants were asked to provide information on whether the yard was privately or commercially owned, the general geographic location (i.e. region), size of the property, designation (i.e. type of agricultural activities allowed); soil type and number of horses kept on the property. For the second part, participants were asked to provide information on the presence and, where applicable, size of landscape features (LFs) present, as well as other biodiversity enhancing attributes (Table 1). The LFs included in the survey were determined according to guidelines from Stichting Part-Ner, Nature Certification, and cross-checked with the EU Functional Landscape Feature classes according to Czúcz, Baruth, Terres, et al. [10] (Table 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Content of survey questions regarding LFs and biodiversity features (with *denoting the elements that were included in the calculation of overall Percentage Property Coverage (PPC).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168.t001

Data classification

To determine whether landscape features from the current survey would qualify as LFs in terms of functional size, and could thus contribute to biodiversity, all landscape features were classified using the geometric specifications of the EU Functional Landscape Feature Classes (FLFC) as set out by Czúcz, Baruth, Terres, et al. [10] (see Table 2). Whenever LFs did not comply with these specifications in terms of functional size, i.e., because they were either too large, or too small, and therefore did not qualify as a LF, they were considered as not contributing towards biodiversity and were thus not included in any further analyses involving LFs.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. The proposed EU Functional Landscape Feature Classes cross-referenced to the LF types commonly recognized in policy documents and their geometric specifications according to Czúcz, Baruth, Terres, et al. [10], and the concurrent classification of current survey items.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168.t002

A number of features not listed in the EU’s proposed FLFC, were included in the current survey. Where these features functions could be argued to resemble commonly classified LFs, they were considered as such, e.g. solitary, monumental and pollard trees were considered isolated trees and the function of permanent woodpiles and cluttered corners may be considered similar to rock piles. Additionally, features including monocultural and herbaceous grassland, birdhouses, bat boxes, insect hotels and proven nesting sites are not considered in the EU FLFC. However, they can have potential utility in contributing towards biodiversity [36–38]. Therefore, it would be beneficial to investigate their presence on farms to help gauge potential importance and determine whether further investigation on these types of landscape feature is warranted.

Results

Commercial yards were significantly larger than private yards (p<0.001) and also had significantly more horses (p<0.001; Table 3). Commercial and private yards had a similar number of LFs but PPC was significantly higher on private yards (p<0.001; see Fig 1 and Table 3). All yards contained at least two features with only commercial yards featuring all 21 features (Fig 2). Most yards were situated on sandy soil, followed by clay soil.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Percentage Property Coverage (PPC) of commercial vs. private yards.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168.g001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Percentage of commercial and private yards featuring an N number of LFs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168.g002

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Descriptives of participating yards, including Mann-Whitney U test of differences.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168.t003

Most private and commercial yards contained LFs such as Birdhouses, Nesting sites and Cluttered corners (Fig 3). The least common LF was forage wall followed by bat boxes and embankments (Fig 3). In general, the proportion of yards containing a particular feature was comparable between private and commercial yards, with the most noticeable differences being features such as tree lanes, trimmed hedges and tree rows (Fig 3). Detailed descriptives of LFs for all yards is provided in the S1–S3 Tables.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Proportion of commercial and private yards (in %) featuring individual LFs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168.g003

Univariable linear regression results

Fourteen of the 21 considered predictor variables in the univariate linear regression analyses explained significant variation in the percentage of a property covered by landscape features (Table 4). Yards that were larger and had more horses, had a lower PPC (Table 4). As can be expected, yards with more LFs also had a greater PPC on their property. Interestingly the size of monocultural grasslands did not explain PPC whilst the size of herbaceous grasslands did (Table 4). The variables explaining the most variation (as indicated through R-square) in PPC included Number of LFs (18.1%), Tree rows (8.4%) and Wild hedges (7.2%; Table 4). All other variables explained less than 5% of variation in PPC (Table 4).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Model summary of univariable hierarchical linear regression.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168.t004

Multivariable hierarchical regression results

Inspection of the data, using the scatterplot of the standardised residuals, showed that assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity had not been violated. Residuals were approximately rectangular in distribution with most of the scores concentrated along the 0 point. Multicollinearity was assessed by examining Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). Tolerance values ranged from 0.775 to 0.997 and the VIF ranged from 1.003 to 1.290, indicating no issues with multicollinearity.

Multivariable hierarchical linear regression analysis revealed that model 1, which included the yard descriptors, explained 21% of the variance (F(3,447) = 39.709; p < 0.001), with Yard size and Number of LFs contributing significantly to the model (Tables 5 and 6). Model 2, which also included the 14 LF variables explained 47.2% of the variation in PPC (F(14,436) = 27.815; p < 0.001; Tables 5 and 6). The following LF variables contributed significantly to the final model: Tree rows, Fruit orchard, Wild hedges, Flowering strips, Buffer strips, Embankments, Cluttered corners (Table 6).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Model summary of multivariable hierarchical linear regression results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168.t005

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. Multivariable hierarchical linear regression results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168.t006

Discussion

As the need for action to halt biodiversity loss becomes ever more urgent, previously overlooked sectors such as equestrianism [20, 24], are needed to contribute towards the restoration of ecosystem services. Our results emphasise the contribution that equine yards make towards promoting biodiversity and restoring ecosystem functions with an average property coverage of 9.08% (commercial yards) and 12.33% (private yards) for two-dimensional landscape features. These values already exceed the targets originally set out by the European Commission [17], and do not even consider the presence of trees on properties. Equine yards also tend to have a diverse number of LFs, with on average ten different features present on both commercial and private yards. These findings demonstrate that there are yards which manage to integrate landscape features effectively on their land. Moreover, current results reveal the additional biodiversity potential that equine yards can attain. The median coverage of 5.85% reflect that half of the yards have room for growth in integrating more landscape features into equine yards.

Not surprisingly, commercial and private yards differ significantly with regards to size and number of horses kept, with commercial yards managing, on average, 5 times as much land as private owners. However, there are five times as many private yard owners, indicating these types of owners, too, have access to a considerable amount of extensively used land.

Moreover, there is great diversity in yard design, which is not surprising considering the wide variety of equestrian properties After all, the way in which horses are kept is likely to vary depending on the primary purpose of the equine yard, ranging from sport and recreational activities, to coaching and therapy, breeding and trade and, on occasion, for the production of meat or milk or as working animals [20, 36, 37]. Such differences in yard design may be one of the key drivers to promoting biodiversity as the number of LFs explains signification variation in PPC. In particular, smaller yards with a greater number of LFs have greater PPC and landscape complexity. At the same time, design parameters to enhance biodiversity likely require complex considerations such as taking the purpose of the property into account and balancing yard size and the number of LFs. It could be argued, therefore, that much of the diversity observed is likely the result of the constraints and priorities of a yard’s primary purpose [38]. In order to integrate ecosystem services and stimulate biodiversity in equine yards, particular attention should be paid to the interaction between land utility and ecological processes [13], as well as how management and husbandry techniques may impact the ecological development of the landscape [39–42].

As current findings show, once the descriptor variables of a yard are controlled for, it is the type of features that determines ultimate PPC and provides a good indication of the actual biodiversity potential of equine yards. Buffer strips, wild hedges, tree rows, flowering strips, embankments and cluttered corners are all features shown to explain variation in the proportion LF coverage. Linear landscape features such as tree rows, buffer strips, wild hedges and flowering strips are widely heralded for their potential to preserve or even restore habitat diversity [43]. Due to their diversity in form and function, LFs can serve as effective secondary habitats for various species [44], promoting biodiversity conservation in otherwise species-poor landscapes [45, 46] as well as serving as important landscape corridors. Hedges and trees have been shown to provide multiple benefits, such as air and water filtration, pest control, pollination support, aesthetic and health advantages, erosion reduction, and annual carbon sequestration [47–51]. Flowering strips have been shown to provide a host of ecosystem services, most notably providing shelter and nectar to pollinators [52, 53] stimulating natural pest control [54] and increasing the aesthetic value of the environment [53, 55]. Equally, embankments, often viewed as engineered structures merely designed for flood control and water management, have become increasingly important as unique habitats to foster plant diversity, and enhance ecosystem functions [56, 57]. Current findings provide evidence that between one-third and one-half of equine yards already integrate a number of these key linear landscape features that, in equine yards at least, appear to be indicative of a more heterogenous yard design.

In the analysis, cluttered corners explained significant variation in PPC demonstrating their significant presence and contribution to landscape diversity. While cluttered corners are often negatively associated with, as the name would suggest, the cluttering of local landscapes and may also pose a certain safety risk for horses if not managed appropriately, they could potentially be modified into useful spaces. Such efforts may promote a change in perception of cluttered corners and in association with the diverse LF, contribute towards a perceptual shift regarding the role of the equine sector in the agro-ecological transition [20, 58].

The majority of equine yards are situated in peri-urban or rural settings, meaning that these yards may well be considered biodiversity ‘connecting hubs’. By linking other rural/agricultural properties with natural reserves, equine yards would facilitate interspecies exchange through landscape corridors [45] in areas where urbanisation or agricultural intensification would make it otherwise more difficult. What is more, since equine yards are not merely a source for horse-human interaction, but also for the interaction between humans and nature [39, 59], a more biodiverse-inclusive yard design may also allow visitors to the yard direct access to nature in the course of their interactions with horses.

Therefore, in order to engage a greater number of yard owners in more biodiverse yard design, cohesive strategies need to be employed on how to achieve such a shift. However, one-size-fits-all approaches to encourage the implementation of agri-ecological schemes have largely been found ineffective [60, 61], simply because they generally fail to take the specifics of a farm into account. In an industry as varied as equestrianism, it is important to take the experiences of other sectors on board.

Specifics of equine yard design are likely to be influenced by a number of factors, ranging from current levels of knowledge and skill, to personal preferences, ideology, client demands, financial considerations, ease of access and efficiency, and, importantly, aspects of equine health and welfare [27, 42, 62, 63].

Additional research is therefore required to investigate how equine yards could make full use of small landscape features while also impacting positively on different aspects of equine behaviour and welfare. In the context of sustainable business operations, it will also be essential to consider the diversity in the "biodiversity value" of different landscape features on the one hand and the efforts regarding maintenance on the other when developing new landscape designs. Cost-benefit analyses will need to determine how yard owners can best balance biodiversity value, equine health and welfare and business costs in light of geographic restrictions.

Limitations

While this citizen science study offers valuable insights into the presence and quality of small landscape features (LFs) on equine yards, some limitations should be taken into account. As data collection relies on voluntary participation, equine yard owners may be more likely to have an interest in or knowledge about aspects relating to biodiversity, potentially leading to an overrepresentation of certain types of properties or specific practices [64]. This bias could affect the generalizability of the findings to all equine properties. For example, results from the study may potentially overestimate the PPC on equine yards, and the actual percentage may thus be lower. This, however, only emphasizes what can be achieved, with these yards acting as model yards that others can follow.

What is more, participants may have varying levels of expertise and commitment, leading to potential variations in data quality and consistency [65]. As a result, differences in data collection techniques, accuracy, and reporting standards can introduce noise into the dataset. However, some studies have shown that citizen scientists may, in fact, produce highly accurate results either due to awareness of their own novice status [66] or due to personal levels of competence [67].

The current study’s focus on equine properties in the Netherlands may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions with different environmental conditions, land use patterns, and equine husbandry practices. Another variable that was also not measured in this study is how PPC may be influenced by the purpose of a yard, for example riding school, training stables or stud farms. Future research should investigate how the PPC of LFs varies among yard types and also among different countries and to understand how levels of biodiversity may be related to the PPC and types of LFs on a property. Despite these limitations, a citizen science approach can provide a valuable avenue for gathering data on LFs in equine properties, offering insights that may not be obtainable through traditional research methods. Careful consideration of these limitations is essential when interpreting and applying the study’s findings to broader contexts and policy recommendations.

Conclusion

The current paper highlights the potential for the equine industry to contribute to the restoration of ecosystem services and the preservation of biodiversity through the integration of landscape features. However, despite encouraging results for the PPC of LFs on equine properties, the considerable variation between yards indicates that much remains to be done to integrate principles of biodiversity in equine yard design.

Key factors influencing landscape PPC included yard size, the number of landscape features, and the type of features. Smaller yards with more features had higher PPC and landscape heterogeneity, which likely enhance biodiversity. Linear landscape features such as tree rows, buffer strips, wild hedges, and flowering strips explained variation in the level of landscape feature coverage.

To encourage more biodiversity on equestrian properties, tailored strategies should consider the diverse factors influencing equine yard design, including existing knowledge, client demands, financial considerations, and equine health and welfare.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the participants of the study for contributing their time and knowledge to this study. Special thanks go to Tineke de Vries from Stichting Part-Ner and Bineke de Vries from Federatie Paardrijden Gehandicapten for their invaluable advice and technical assistance throughout the project.