Motivation Without Means? Behavioral Drivers and Barriers to Biodiversity Implementation on Dutch Equine Yards

Abstract

Equine yards represent a substantial yet often overlooked land-use category in Europe, with potential to contribute to biodiversity and environment conservation. This study explored behavioral drivers and barriers to biodiversity implementation on Dutch equine yards using the COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation—Behavior). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 yard owners, covering both private and commercial operations ranging from <3 hectares to >3 hectares. Data were analyzed thematically using a deductive COM-B framework, with coded responses quantified to assess the relative weight of barriers and enablers. Reflective motivation emerged as a consistent enabler, grounded in values such as equine welfare, sustainability, and responsible land use. However, barriers were more prevalent overall, particularly within physical and social opportunity. Small yards faced constraints related to time, labor, and land tenure, while larger yards reported challenges integrating biodiversity into routines and navigating regulatory complexity. Psychological capability was not a major constraint, though yard owners expressed a clear need for externally sourced, informed advice. These findings suggest that while motivation is high, structural barriers limit implementation. Unlocking the ecological potential of equine yards will require targeted, size-sensitive policy support, recognition of their land stewardship role, and better integration of biodiversity into daily management practices.

1. Introduction

Biodiversity loss represents one of the most critical global challenges of our time. Over the past decades, global ecosystems have suffered unprecedented declines in species richness, genetic diversity, and habitat connectivity, with far-reaching implications for food security, climate resilience, and planetary health [1,2]. In Europe, agricultural land use is considered one of the principal drivers of biodiversity decline, with over 50% of species at risk directly affected by land-use practices [3,4]. The Netherlands, where more than half the land surface is designated for agriculture, has experienced some of the steepest biodiversity losses in Europe, with losses of 57% of meadow bird species between 1980 and 2020 [5], and 80% in grassland butterflies over the past century [6,7].

In response, European and national policies increasingly emphasize the role of nature-inclusive land management and green-blue infrastructure in promoting environment conservation and reversing biodiversity decline [8,9,10]. Green-blue infrastructure is defined as interconnected networks of semi-natural elements such as hedgerows, tree lines, ponds, and flower-rich margins and has been shown to support habitat connectivity, pollination, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, and climate adaptation [11,12].

To date, much of the transition towards more nature-inclusive land management focuses on productive agricultural land, overlooking other expansive land-use types that hold substantial, and often underutilized, potential for ecological contribution. Among these, equine yards and grazing areas constitute a significant, yet underrecognized, land category [13,14]. Across the European Union, horse-related land use covers an estimated 6 million hectares (ha) [13,15]. Unlike other livestock sectors, the equine sector spans a hybrid terrain: it is at once agricultural and recreational, rural and peri-urban, productive and symbolic [16,17,18,19,20]. It stands to argue, therefore, that equine yards offer a unique entry point into the intersection of land use, biodiversity, and socio-cultural values.

Previous research has demonstrated the potential of equine yards to support green blue infrastructure [14]. Their permanent grasslands and extensive outdoor space enable integration of ecological features such as woodland patches, wildflower strips, and water bodies. Moreover, equine grazing systems, particularly when compared to high-output cattle systems, tend to promote higher botanical diversity due to lower grazing intensity and more varied foraging patterns [21,22]. In addition to ecological benefits, such features align with equine welfare goals offering animals opportunities for natural behavior, social interaction, and environmental enrichment [23,24,25,26]. When given the opportunity, horses exhibit distinct preferences for specific landscape elements, adapting their behavior, such as resting, foraging, or shelter-seeking in relation to microhabitat diversity, shade, wind exposure, and social interactions [27,28,29]. These patterns suggest that horse yards, when designed to accommodate both equine needs and ecological complexity, can become multi-functional nodes within regional green infrastructure.

Equine yard owners are increasingly aware of the potential for their land to contribute to ecological goals, alongside equine welfare and business operations [30,31,32,33]. A socio-spatial analysis of German and Dutch equine yards [20] demonstrates that this interest in biodiversity is not merely incidental but often deeply embedded in owners’ sense of place, care, and responsibility. Many owners express a strong emotional and moral connection to the land and to the animals in their care, which can translate into a desire to integrate more natural elements such as woodlands, hedgerows, or flower-rich margins into the yard design. However, the study also shows that this interest unfolds within a complex socio-spatial context. The ambiguous position of equine yards, situated between agriculture, leisure, and care, can create uncertainty around land-use legitimacy, access to support structures, and recognition in biodiversity policy [20,31]. These complex emotional, cognitive, structural and contextual factors all shape yard owners’ perceptions on what they consider feasible or even desirable when it comes to integrating greater levels of biodiversity and green blue infrastructure on their yard.

However, when seeking to move from intention to implementation, it is essential to understand the factors that drive or hinder behavior. Contrary to popular belief, behavior is not solely shaped by knowledge or values but results from a dynamic interaction between capability (skills and knowledge), opportunity (social and physical context), and motivation (both reflective and automatic) [34,35]. These three components form the foundation of the COM-B model, a widely used behavior change framework applied across agricultural [36,37,38], environmental [39] and equestrian contexts [32,40,41].

Drawing on the COM-B model, the current study aims to explore which factors currently enable or inhibit equine yard owners in adopting biodiversity-enhancing practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study employed a qualitative research design, drawing on semi-structured interviews with private and commercial equine yard owners in The Netherlands. Data analysis was guided by the COM-B model and the behavior Change Wheel [42], which provided a deductive framework for identifying behavioral determinants related to biodiversity implementation on equine yards.

2.2. Participant Selection

A total of 19 equine yard owners were recruited as part of a larger research project surrounding nature-inclusive management. Participating yards were situated throughout the Netherlands from a diverse range of context, including privately owned stables (N = 3), combination riding school/livery yard (N = 6), equine coaching (N = 5), livery yards (N = 3), equestrian event location (N = 1) and an equine educational institution (N = 1). Yard sizes ranged from 0.33 ha to 71.20 ha, with an average of 11.59 ± 16.62 ha. The number of horses per yard ranged from 2 to 120, with a mean of 38.79 ± 37.26.

All participants provided written consent, having been informed of the aims of the study, their anonymity, and their right to withdraw at any time without repercussions.

2.3. Interview Framework and Data Collection

To manage the interviews efficiently, participating yards were divided between two researchers based on size (<3 hectares (ha) and >3 ha). Although there is no formal definition distinguishing small and large equine yards in the Netherlands, the 3 ha threshold was chosen based on practical considerations. Smaller yards are generally perceived as more manageable in terms of maintenance and cost, while larger yards often have a more visible land-use footprint and may carry greater informal influence within the local community. As such, the current distinction was used to allow for practically grounded comparisons between small and large yards. Both researchers used the same semi-structured script, which was jointly developed and discussed in advance to ensure consistency in approach and interpretation.

Interviews were conducted on-site and in Dutch between February and May 2025 to allow for context-sensitive engagement and visual familiarity with each yard. Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 min. The interview guide was structured around the COM-B framework, with introductory questions about the yard and participants’ definitions of biodiversity. Main questions targeted each of the six behavioral domains (e.g., “What specific skills or knowledge do you feel are lacking?”; “What social support or resistance have you encountered?”) (see Appendix A for the semi-structured interview guide). This structure enabled comprehensive coverage of behavioral drivers while also allowing inductive insights to emerge.

All interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent, transcribed using Whisper Transcribe software v.1, and manually verified for accuracy prior to analysis. Data were subsequently imported into Atlas.ti 23.0 for further analysis.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted from a post-positivist stance, which recognizes that both participant responses and thematic interpretations are shaped by prior experience, yet still holds that systematic analysis can help approximate a more reliable understanding of the underlying dynamics [43]. In line with this orientation, the richness of qualitative insight was complemented by descriptive quantification of code frequencies. Such quantification does not imply statistical significance but serves as an indicator of salience, reflecting how often specific barriers or enablers surfaced in participant narratives. As noted by Sandelowski [44], incorporating numerical summaries can strengthen qualitative interpretation by illustrating the relative prominence of patterns without reducing meaning to measurement. This dual approach allows for both interpretive nuance and a degree of structured comparison across themes. Data were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis [45,46], drawing on the COM-B model as a theoretical framework. COM-B domains served as overarching, higher-order themes.

Prior to analysis, the second and third author familiarized themselves with the transcripts, reading them several times, accompanied by reflective note-taking. The data were subsequently examined line-by-line. Words or phrases that carried similar meaning were grouped into thematic categories. Categories considered to hold similar meaning were subsequently grouped into lower-order themes, and labeled to reflect their content. Finally, all lower order themes were assigned to relevant COM-B higher order themes and classified according to their directional behavioral determinant, as being either facilitative (“enabler”) or debilitative (“barrier”) behavioral determinants. The first and last authors reviewed all codes and themes to ensure internal coherence throughout this iterative process. Divergences in coding were discussed until full consensus was reached. To support the qualitative insights into the data, the dataset was exported to Microsoft Excel to generate frequency counts for each theme. Redundant codes were removed and spelling inconsistencies corrected. All higher and lower order themes, as well as illustrative quotes were translated into English using the GenAI chatbot ChatGPT (GPT 4o). Translations were subsequently checked for accuracy by the first and last author.

3. Results

3.1. Higher Order Theme: Physical Capability

This higher order theme refers to the physical ability required to implement biodiversity measures, including the effort, strength, or stamina necessary for ongoing land management tasks. While not one of the most frequently raised themes across both small and large yards, when it did surface, the underlying message was clear: biodiversity work is physically demanding, and often something yard owners cannot do alone.

Among small yards, physical effort was often seen as part of the job. While sometimes a challenge, much of the work seemed to get absorbed into the daily rhythm of yard management, and became Physically manageable:

“Yes, it’s really just weeds. Beyond that, we’ve always tried to keep the grass looking a bit like a lawn in summer. But we’ve got a robot for that. It mows. And we use the other pasture for grazing. Look, we maintain that of course.”

(Respondent 19, Equine coaching)

When asked about the specifics of maintenance, participants responded pragmatically: “Yes, we do that. We use pruning shears for it. Oh yes. So you can still manage it with pruning shears.” (Respondent 7, Private yard).

Still, this self-reliance came with limitations. Smaller yards often lacked formal staff support, meaning that all physical labor had to be done by the owners themselves and could thus present as a barrier:

“We’re not a big business and don’t have a lot of staff, so it’s definitely something that needs careful consideration.”

(Respondent 3, Riding school/livery yard)

“What you really want is to be able to bring in help—actual manpower, or womanpower—who can take care of things on a regular basis.”

(Respondent 1, Equine coaching)

In larger yards, physical work was more consistently framed as a barrier: “Maintenance is the issue.” (Respondent 18, Livery yard) and “It’s labor-intensive.” (Respondent 10, Riding school/livery yard).

Owners described a need for consistent, reliable help, able to provide regular support for ongoing maintenance, succinctly put by one of the respondents: “We’re not going to go around trimming things ourselves.” (Respondent 8, Livery yard).

While this suggests that physical effort is not a major concern overall, the absence of enablers in large yards may indicate that the availability of the necessary physical skills should also not be taken for granted. See

Table 1. Distribution of lower-order themes within the higher order theme: physical capability, by yard size.

Direction	Lower Order Theme	Definition	Large Yards	Small Yards
Barrier	Physical overload	The extent to which biodiversity measures are perceived as physically demanding, especially with regard to recurring tasks like pruning, planting, and fencing, underpinned by a perceived lack of capacity to perform tasks independently.	2.07%	0.89%
Enabler	Physically manageable	Despite the physical demands of biodiversity measures, respondents consider themselves physically capable of performing the required tasks independently, without additional physical support.	0.00%	0.70%

for a breakdown of the lower-order themes.

3.2. Higher Order Theme: Psychological Capability

This higher order theme covers the knowledge and cognitive skills relevant to biodiversity management. While not dominant across the dataset, psychological capability was a meaningful theme in both small and large yards, particularly in relation to participants’ awareness of their own limitations. The most common challenge was a reliance on external expertise, not simply due to a lack of knowledge, but a broader sense of uncertainty about where to begin or how to make the right decisions: “I’m sure there are things I don’t know yet. I’m always learning. I’m convinced there are things I’ve done without realizing they weren’t the best choice.” (Respondent 12, Equine coaching), and “There’s simply very little knowledge within our own sector, but also among those who are supposed to be steering it.” (Respondent 4, Riding school/livery yard).

Another respondent put it succinctly: “So I’m basically just trying things out. I read, I listen, I observe, and then I do something. Because you have to start somewhere. But of course, I’m not a soil scientist, I’m not an ecologist. Am I actually doing it right?” (Respondent 11, Riding school/livery yard).

This sense of cognitive overload was particularly acute when yard owners were faced with complex or site-specific biodiversity questions, such as which native species to plant, or what to do with difficult soil types. Several participants voiced a strong desire for tailored guidance: “I said, can someone who actually understands this stuff help me figure it out? What native trees and shrubs make sense? What’s the smart choice for my soil? What’s appropriate?” (Respondent 10, Riding school/livery yard).

Even those with a strong intuitive understanding of biodiversity expressed uncertainty when it came to putting that understanding into practice: “So yeah… what’s good, what’s bad? That conversation—for me—I’d have to see it written out, how it would actually work. Because honestly, I don’t really know what’s considered good or bad.” (Respondent 4, Riding school/livery yard).

In both small and large yards, this barrier of “not knowing enough” was balanced by enablers, including accumulated experience and proactive learning, captured in the lower level theme of Acquired knowledge level. Participants often demonstrated a well-rounded conceptual grasp of biodiversity: “Biodiversity, to me, is nature—both flora and fauna. It’s a mix of greenery that supports a variety of insects, animals, birds, and everything that lives around it.” (Respondent 1, Equine coaching).

“It’s a healthy kind of diversity, built from a full food chain—from fungi to predators, and everything in between.”

(Respondent 14, Equestrian event location)

“The variation in species, whether it’s grasses and herbs or trees and shrubs… also insects, salamanders—really that green diversity, including what lives in the soil.”

(Respondent 8, Livery yard)

This suggests that many yard owners possess an intuitive or learned appreciation of biodiversity as a system, even if they do not always feel confident applying it to their own setting. What is more, in addition to the quality of acquired knowledge, respondents also expressed some confidence in knowing where to go and ask for help: “I can find that knowledge quite easily. I’ve got a fair bit of knowledge myself—because I’ve been invested in this for a long time. So yes, I’ve been more or less aware of this for a long time. And because of that, I think I have just a bit more knowledge than average and I also know better who to go to.” (Respondent 19, Equine coaching), or “We do have a very good advisor who did that for us.” (Respondent 1, Equine coaching).

Overall, barriers and enablers appeared to be relatively balanced, suggesting that while psychological capability is relevant, it is unlikely to represent the primary constraint. See

Table 2. Distribution of lower-order themes within the higher order theme: psychological capability, by yard size.

Direction	Lower Order Theme	Definition	Large Yards	Small Yards
Barrier	Dependence on external knowledge	Reliance on outside expertise for biodiversity planning, landscape planning, and rules and regulations relating to biodiversity measures, due to lack of in-house knowledge or experience.	2.83%	1.39%
Enablers	Effective knowledge seeking	Awareness of where to find relevant outside expertise for biodiversity planning, landscape planning, and rules and regulations relating to biodiversity measures, and confidence in seeking and using that expertise when needed.	0.40%	0.40%
	Acquired knowledge level	Existing knowledge built through experience or training, including the ability to apply principles in practice.	1.62%	2.28%

for a breakdown of the lower-order themes.

3.3. Higher Order Theme: Physical Opportunity

The theme of Physical opportunity encompasses material and structural factors such as space, labor, finances, legal frameworks, and land characteristics. Across all interviews, it emerged as one of the most frequently mentioned factors, often framed as the reality check between biodiversity ideals and the practicalities of keeping horses. The tension between horses’ needs, ambitions for biodiversity, financial viability, and the constraints of the physical environment was repeatedly emphasized. One participant summarized the dilemma: “Sure, we could keep fewer horses, say, go from sixty to fifty, and use the freed-up space for turnout. But in practice, that doesn’t create much extra room. So, the idea that fewer horses would significantly improve outdoor access isn’t really realistic. That’s the tension we’re dealing with. Fewer horses sounds nice, but what do we actually gain? And can we redesign things in a way that really benefits the horses?” (Respondent 17, Riding school).

In small yards, references to physical opportunity predominantly pointed to barriers, with only very few enabling factors being mentioned. Key challenges included restrictive regulations and spatial limitations, which made it difficult for yard owners to realize their biodiversity ambitions. “This is it. I can’t expand. Over here I’ve got a nature reserve, behind me an ecological area, and there’s a highway. I’m stuck with these three hectares.” (Yard 3 Riding school/livery yard) and “The biggest challenge now is getting additional pastureland.” (Respondent 13, Equine coaching).

Several private yard owners acknowledged that their contributions to biodiversity come at a personal cost, which they are only willing or able to accept because they are not financially dependent on their yards. “We’re not really a business. We’re private. So, we accept the costs. But if you had to make a living from this, you couldn’t do it the way we do. Then you couldn’t call the vet as often, or take care of the horses the same way. You’d have to earn money.” (Respondent 7, Private yard).

Physical constraints, i.e., spatial limitations, were perceived as rigid and largely unchangeable, especially in contexts where no support is available. In larger yards, structural barriers were also frequently cited, particularly restrictive regulations and spatial limitations. “The biggest challenge is space. We’ve had to use our own land really intensively, because I think it’s super important that the horses go outside for a few hours every day. In winter it’s sometimes less, but I want them out as much as possible.” (Respondent 2, Riding school).

“The zoning plan really is an issue.”

(Respondent 4, Riding school/livery yard)

There was clear frustration about the land management challenges, including the lack of financial resources or reward for the extra effort being made: “I think you should get bonus points for this. We’re doing all kinds of things—and so are our neighboring farmers—but in the end we’re still the ones left hanging. Those who farm intensively in a traditional way are treated the same as those of us who adjust mowing dates, consider soil conditions and weather, plant trees, add buffer strips, protect fawn nests, mark lapwing eggs… We do all that—but who notices?” (Respondent 10, Riding school). The concern about the lack of a return on biodiversity investments was raised frequently: “Running a business is mostly about liquidity—how much money goes in and how much goes out. We started with zero. If I build more rooms, I can calculate the return: I’ll earn that back in six years. That’s the kind of calculation a bank wants to see.” (Respondent 6, Equine coaching).

Even where support is present, such as staff or volunteers, this often reflects a workaround for limited financial means rather than a structural enabler. “Everything a volunteer does with a digger is something I don’t have to pay a contractor for.” (Respondent 10, Riding school/livery yard).

Some yard owners did acknowledge having competent people around them, but this was the exception rather than the rule: “For example, I’ve got a volunteer who helps out here a bit.” (Respondent 2, Riding school), or “The people who work here are tough girls. I can carry stuff too—we could handle a large job together.” (Respondent 12, Equine coaching).

Although enablers were mentioned slightly more often than in small yards, they rarely outweighed the perceived constraints. While a few examples of enabling conditions were present, these were sparse and rarely offset the broader structural limitations. As such, structural support for biodiversity implementation at the fundamental level was clearly perceived as insufficient. See

Table 3. Distribution of lower-order themes within the higher order theme: physical opportunity, by yard size.

Direction	Lower Order Theme	Definition	Large Yards	Small Yards
Barriers	Labor restrictions	The absence or limited availability of individuals, both paid staff and volunteers, to assist with the implementation or maintenance of biodiversity measures. This includes difficulties in securing consistent or ad hoc support.	1.15%	2.17%
	Land management challenges	The lack of practical feasibility or organizational capacity to carry out biodiversity-friendly land management, due to time-intensive tasks, inefficient routines, or absence of technical solutions.	1.05%	0.70%
	Lack of financial resources	Insufficient financial means to support biodiversity measures, including costs related to maintenance, materials, labor, or infrastructure. This includes lack of access to external funding or a viable business model.	4.55%	2.77%
	Restrictive regulations	Restrictive or complex legal frameworks, zoning plans, permit requirements, or environmental legislation that limit or complicate the implementation of biodiversity measures.	6.17%	3.86%
	Spatial Limitations	Physical layouts or spatial configurations that restrict the implementation of biodiversity-enhancing features, including limited space, poor integration, or conflicting land use. This also includes adverse contextual changes due to spatial developments.	1.91%	3.66%
	Adverse soil conditions	Unsuitable or unfavorable soil conditions that constrain biodiversity-related actions, such as poor drainage, low fertility, or mismatched vegetation potential.	0.17%	0.00%
Enablers	Labor availability	The presence, accessibility, and deploy-ability of individuals, both paid staff and volunteers, who can assist in implementing or maintaining biodiversity measures. This includes both ongoing engagement and occasional support	1.15%	0.10%
	Land management	The practical feasibility and organization of land management in ways that support biodiversity, including the use of efficient maintenance strategies, mechanical tools, or smart spatial planning.	0.64%	0.00%
	Access to financial resources	The availability of internal financial means or access to external funding opportunities that support biodiversity measures, including investment in infrastructure, materials, or labor.	1.44%	0.00%
	Spatial support	The physical layout and spatial configuration of the premises that actively enable or support biodiversity-friendly planning and greening efforts.	0.11%	0.00%

for a breakdown by lower-order theme.

3.4. Higher Order Theme: Social Opportunity

Social opportunity, referring to the influence of external actors, institutions, and local networks, emerged clearly across the dataset. across the dataset. While slightly more prominent in large yards than in small ones, in both groups, barriers strongly outweighed enablers.

In small yards, barriers centered on Lack of institutional support) and Restrictive contractual conditions, pointing to a gap in structural backing from (local) governments and/or land-owning non-governmental organizations. “We’re dealing with leasehold here, and that expires in a few years. The few times we’ve had to talk to the municipality were about investments we wanted to make. But I’m not going to invest if I have to leave in three or four years, and that’s just really annoying. It’s a huge obstacle.” (Respondent 3, Riding school/livery yard).

Notably, small yard respondents did not cite Lack of sectoral recognition nor Conflicting external expectations, suggesting limited interaction with, or resistance from, broader policy or stakeholder environments. While Supportive local relationships were sometimes described, the overall scarcity of enablers hints at a deeper issue: these yards seem to fall beneath the radar of institutional actors and may lack the resources or status to effectively advocate for themselves.

In large yards, the same pattern emerged, with contractual restrictions from local governments or land-owning organizations representing serious barriers to biodiversity and sustainable land management. “It’s a lease agreement with a nature organization—land in a forest that used to grow maize. And when [the yard owner] asked, can we convert this into a horse pasture? We could put in all sorts of beautiful native planting strips around it. And you’d think the nature organization would welcome that—it’s what they’re for, right? You’d think they’d be happier with that than a maize field. We’ve been working on this request for three years, I think. And still no answer. I don’t think it’ll take ten more years—but I’ve only had two emails from them saying it’s been passed on internally and they’ll get back to us.” (Respondent 9, Livery yard).

But different emphases were also apparent. Lack of institutional support and Lack of sectoral recognition were particularly salient, reinforcing each other in a feedback loop of invisibility and subsequent lack of support: “I’ve already emailed them three times. You call, they say you have to email. Then you email, and no one replies. Then you have to email again.” (Respondent 12, Equine coaching). Building of relationships, and the need for long-term continuity in government contacts, was a recurring theme: “Come with a long-term vision. Don’t show up with a new face every four years.” (Respondent 18, Livery yard).

At its core, respondents seem to feel that the equine sector is plagued by external misconceptions about who or what it is: “You need to be taken seriously. And when you talk to the government and the first thing someone says—someone who knows nothing about horses—is: ‘But horse sport pays for itself, right? I mean, they all drive those massive trucks.’” (Respondent 4, Riding school/livery yard). Not having a clear identity also means not fitting into existing frameworks that are frequently disadvantageous for yard owners: “It’s always a disadvantage that I’m not [an official farmer]. Or that I am. It never works in my favor. It rarely helps that I have, or that I’m not. It’s always this ongoing calculation. And when I point that out, they just say, ‘Well yes, those are the rules.’” (Respondent 4, Riding school/livery yard).

There seems to be a growing awareness that sector identity is needed to be part of something bigger: “I noticed that all the agricultural users—they were being included, united. And I thought, I’m just sitting here. Why am I not part of that? It took a while.” (Respondent 11, Riding school/livery yard). Some yard owners also pointed to a mismatch between their ambitions and the way bureaucracy operates: “Bureaucracy does not align at all with the objectives we have.” (Respondent 4, Riding school/livery yard).

Despite the fact that enablers were relatively sparse, some yard owners offered a glimpse into how collaboration can eventually bear fruit: “With the Province, I can discuss everything in advance. Through all the developments and all that talking, talking, talking—a lot has come from it. I’m now doing a bit of project management for another project, because of it.” (Respondent 11, Riding school/livery yard).

Constructive collaborations with the government and supportive local relationships were increasingly viewed as offering an opportunity for equine yards: “That’s when you really start to create a kind of added value—socially speaking—for your surroundings. You can genuinely give something back to the people around you.” (Respondent 12, Equine coaching).

These reflections indicate that yard owners are indeed aware of the potential to contribute positively to their local communities, and increasingly view biodiversity management as a way to create social as well as environmental value.

See

Table 4. Distribution of lower-order themes within the higher order theme: social opportunity, by yard size.

Direction	Lower Order Theme	Definition	Large Yards	Small Yards
Barriers	Restrictive contractual conditions	Long-term contractual arrangements, such as leaseholds, that restrict decision-making or delay action due to inflexible conditions, unclear responsibilities, or limited autonomy.	0.40%	1.78%
	Lack of sectoral recognition	The perceived lack of formal or informal recognition of equine yards as legitimate agricultural or societal actors, affecting access to support, legitimacy, and inclusion in policy or funding schemes.	1.78%	0.00%
	Difficulties collaborating with government	Difficulties engaging effectively with government bodies due to complex procedures, inconsistent communication, lack of responsiveness, or limited willingness to collaborate.	1.21%	1.39%
	Tensions with local stakeholders	Challenging relationships with neighbors, landowners, or other local actors, which may result in resistance, complaints, or conflict over biodiversity-related changes or land use.	0.93%	0.79%
	Lack of institutional support	The absence or inadequacy of structural or practical support from public institutions, including limited access to advice, facilitation, or assistance in navigating ecological investments or regulatory processes.	1.94%	2.38%
	Conflicting external expectations	External pressure from clients, customers, or the broader public to conform to expectations around service, aesthetics, or behavior, which may conflict with biodiversity goals.	0.64%	0.00%
Enablers	Constructive collaboration with government	Effective and responsive interactions with government bodies, including accessible communication, clear procedures, and a willingness to support biodiversity-related initiatives.	0.44%	0.20%
	Supportive local relationships	Positive and constructive relationships with neighbors, landowners, or other local stakeholders, contributing to social acceptance, shared goals, or community involvement in biodiversity measures.	1.32%	1.78%
	Active institutional support	Practical and structural support from public institutions, such as targeted guidance, co-investment, or facilitation of ecological actions and policy processes.	0.64%	0.00%

for an overview of subthemes.

3.5. Higher Order Theme: Automatic Motivation

The higher order theme Automatic Motivation encompasses emotional attachment to biodiversity, identity, and affective drivers. Although referenced less frequently than most other themes, it still provides important insight into how instinctive or emotional responses shape biodiversity-related behavior. In both yard types, enablers outweighed barriers,. The most frequently mentioned theme was Connection to nature, suggesting that personal and emotional attachment to the landscape plays a role in supporting biodiversity-oriented behavior.

“I think it’s beautiful. I find nature important. I find it beautiful.” (Respondent 18, Livery yard) and “We’ve just spent five minutes talking about a single tree. That means we must feel something about it.” (Respondent 8, Livery yard). This emotional connection is not necessarily strategic or outcome-driven, but offers a form of intuitive validation for nature-focused behavior and design.

Barriers in this theme were rare. The most notable was the Normative frame of reference, referring to traditional beliefs about what an equine yard should look like. Although infrequently cited, it indicates that established expectations can still constrain thinking. As one respondent put it: “I think it’s really beautiful—but if you stand here where you are now… yeah, I’d have to seriously rethink everything to turn it into something like that.” (Respondent 9, Livery yard). This highlights how affective change may take time and effort, especially when the shift challenges ingrained mental models.

Only small yards mentioned Dedicated equine engagement), referring to a strong personal or moral commitment to horses and the land. “And that’s great, because of course we’re also talking here—and maybe this is about that too—about biodiversity and all that. And then I say: look, biodiversity, it’s all well and good that we want all those plants and animals and whatever. But to me, something else is more important. Is the horse happy? Yes? Okay. But is the owner still having fun too?” (Respondent 7, Private yard). While classified under automatic motivation, this type of commitment may in fact be partially reflective, suggesting that for some, emotional bonds are consciously cultivated over time See

Table 5. Distribution of lower-order themes within the higher order theme: automatic motivation, by yard size.

Direction	Lower Order Theme	Definition	Large Yards	Small Yards
Barrier	Normative frame of reference	A set of beliefs, habits and cultural norms determining what is considered appropriate or standard in equine yards. This framework shapes behavior mostly subconsciously and is rooted in upbringing, past experiences or sector norms.	0.55%	0.20%
Enablers	Dedicated equine engagement	A deep emotional and moral commitment to horses, the business and the pursuit of welfare and quality. This behavioral driver is closely tied to personal identity.	0.00%	0.89%
	Connection to nature	An intuitive and emotionally meaningful relationship with nature, landscape and biodiversity. This connection provides motivation and personal well-being.	2.42%	2.58%

for an overview of subthemes.

3.6. Higher Order Theme: Reflective Motivation

Reflective motivation includes conscious decision-making, long-term planning, and value-driven behavior and was the most dominant higher order theme across both yard types, particularly as an enabler.

Across both yard types Perceived value of biodiversity was referenced frequently, highlighting a deliberate and often multifaceted appreciation of biodiversity. “I completely switch on when someone says, ‘Yes, I can do something with this, bring more balance to your yard.’ Yes, I believe in it.” (Respondent 13, Equine coaching).

Among smaller yards, a clear focus emerged on supporting a greater variety of flora and fauna: “So that it’s also a bit for the birds…. because we really cater here to the birds. In spring, our barn is full of swallows. So we purposely leave nettle strips standing, because they’re full of flies—which the swallows eat. So we try to make it all work together. Improving the quality of the yard, for people, animals, and the environment.” (Respondent 19, Equine coaching).

The theme Horse welfare as a guiding principle also emerged strongly, especially in small yards, suggesting a close alignment between biodiversity and equine care. “It’s all over the news that insects and bees and butterflies are declining rapidly. You know, if we manage our land in a more grass-based way—let me put it that way—with few trees or shrubs, and I can still do something about that, then I’m helping my horses by giving them a more challenging and welfare-enhancing environment, and I’m also helping the bees and butterflies and the rest.” (Respondent 15, Private yard).

Intrinsic sustainability drive defined as the internalized responsibility to act without external incentives, was present in both yard types, demonstrating aself-motivated orientation towards sustainable management, beyond compliance or reputational concerns. “I want a business that reflects nature. A natural way of keeping horses, but also one that fits beautifully into the surroundings. There are so many farmyards that are fully paved—I don’t think that’s appropriate anymore. I want my business to align with nature.” (Respondent 2, Riding school).

Yet the theme Ambiguity around sector identity was mentioned in both large and small yards, reflecting a deeper uncertainty about the sector’s societal and ecological role. “Horse owners need to define their own identity.” (Respondent 4, Riding school/livery yard), or “Right now, as a horse sector, we kind of fall through all the cracks.” (Respondent 12, Equine coaching).

Another barrier, Conflicting attitudes towards soil management, was voiced only by participants from large yards and may indicate residual attachment to conventional management practices that do not always align with biodiversity goals. “Yes, I don’t want to do without artificial fertilizer here. But it’s bizarre that I have to remove my manure.” (Respondent 9, Livery yard). Lastly, the enabler Shared sense of sector identity was mentioned only in large yards, which may be indicative that larger equine businesses are beginning to actively reflect on their societal role and potential for collective action. As one yard owner remarked: “And it would be even better if we could get things moving from the bottom up. I think I wouldn’t really know how to approach that strategically. If I did know, I’d probably want to really go for it.” (Respondent 4, Riding school/livery yard). The quote illustrates both a growing awareness of the sector’s transformative capacity and a desire to contribute more deliberately, if the tools and direction were clearer. See

Table 6. Distribution of lower-order themes within the higher order theme: reflective motivation, by yard size.

Direction	Lower Order Theme	Definition	Large Yards	Small Yards
Barriers	Conflicting attitudes toward soil management	Attitudes and behaviors around soil management with an emphasis on natural practices and grass growth.	1.27%	0.00%
	Ambiguity around sector identity	Uncertainty or disagreement about the equine sector’s societal and ecological role, including concerns about recognition, fragmentation, and unclear positioning within broader agricultural or environmental frameworks.	1.73%	2.28%
Enabler	Perceived value of biodiversity	Beliefs about the functional value of biodiversity, including improved horse welfare, social benefits, and environmental enrichment.	5.75%	8.71%
	Horse welfare as guiding principle	Horse welfare functions as a core value that shapes management decisions, daily practices, and long-term sustainability goals.	2.07%	6.54%
	Shared sense of sector identity	A clear and positive sense of the equine sector’s identity, purpose, and contribution to society and sustainability, supporting motivation for collective action and self-regulation.	0.58%	0.00%
	Intrinsic sustainability drive	The capacity and responsibility to independently guide sustainability efforts, based on intrinsic motivation rather than external pressure.	1.21%	1.39%

for an overview of subthemes.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to identify the behavioral determinants influencing the adoption of biodiversity-enhancing measures among Dutch equine yard owners, using the COM-B model as a guiding framework. By comparing small and large yards, and analyzing both shared and divergent factors, the current study provides a nuanced picture of the drivers and barriers to biodiversity uptake in the equine sector.

Current findings show reflective motivation as a central enabler across both small and large yards. Most participants articulated clear values tied to equine welfare, land stewardship, and responsible entrepreneurship.

“It’s like a triangle: nature, the social-societal side, and economics. Those three aspects are always the key themes in how I run my business. They need to flow into one another. If you strengthen one, the others naturally follow.”

(Respondent 4, Riding school/Livery yard)

Research has shown that both cognitive reappraisal of nature, i.e., the tendency of how one thinks of a situation, and feelings of being connected to nature positively affects pro-environmental behaviors [47,48,49]. As such, yard owners’ responses to biodiversity may be seen not merely as an environmental add-on, but as part of a broader ethical commitment to “doing right” by horses and the landscape. In the words of one of the respondents: “I want my business to radiate nature—a natural way of keeping horses that also fits beautifully into the surrounding landscape. You still see a lot of farmyards covered in paving, but to me, that no longer feels appropriate. I want my business to be in tune with nature.”

(Respondent 2, Riding school/livery yard)

What is more, these findings echo previous studies on landowner motivations, where long-term goals and personal identity often underpin sustainable land use decisions [50,51]. However, while this affective grounding can often serve as the initial trigger for action, entrenched norms and habits can continue to act as barriers, especially in groups or individuals with little direct experience of biodiversity measures. It is therefore not entirely surprising that a small number of participants expressed a certain level of skepticism. They cautioned of biodiversity measures as being “messy,” or voiced concerns about poisonous plants. These reactions align with research on cultural norms in land management, where conventional visual cues (e.g., neatness) can hinder adoption of ecologically diverse landscapes [52,53]. However, as Furtado et al. [30] have shown, expectations and perceptions can shift over time, often when accompanied by what individuals value most. In the case of equestrians, this is generally equine welfare. That means that, where ‘messiness’ in the context of biodiversity is associated with increased equine welfare, for example through more varied browsing and foraging, associated esthetic perceptions are also likely to shift. This, in turn, opens up the possibility for replacing traditional cultural norms with new ones. Such shifts are increasingly reflected in frameworks like One Health [54] and One Welfare [55], which recognize that the health and wellbeing of humans, animals, and the natural environment are inextricably connected. In this view, supporting biodiversity on equine yards is not just an environmental or ethical choice, but part of a wider effort to create systems in which all living beings, humans and non-humans alike, can flourish.

Most yard owners also demonstrated a clear understanding of the general importance of biodiversity and a working knowledge of good practices. They did, however, acknowledge their limitations in technical expertise or site-specific knowledge, such as species selection or soil–plant interactions. This was illustrated particularly poignantly when yard owners responded with questions themselves:

“Could someone who knows what they’re doing help me think this through? What native trees and shrubs actually make sense? What’s the smart choice?”

(Respondent 10, Riding school/livery yard)

Such comments clearly indicate the need for tailoring any future advice as much as possible to the specific needs and requirements of equine yard owners, ideally with regard to their local, site-specific context. Participants therefore welcomed external expertise as a complement to their own insights. Knowledge has been shown to be most effectively mobilized through practical learning environments, enhanced by trusted advisory relationships [56,57,58]. This need was vocalized by participants asking for more involvement from equestrian organizations:

“I’m convinced that there’s so much more knowledge to be gained than what we currently draw from the national association for equestrian entrepreneurs. There’s far more to be found in the local agricultural nature collectives, and also within the broader agricultural network. Of the twelve farmers in this area—myself included—there’s so much more available than what I currently make use of.”

(Respondent 11, Riding school)

Indeed, this is echoed by the fact that participants considered their own (perceived) lack of physical capability a small, but contextually important barrier. The practical challenges of developing a new skill to suit very individualized context without appropriate guidance has been shown to be very frustrating [59]. Previous research into capacity building and experimental learning has shown that action can precede full expertise, and that capability may emerge dynamically through iterative practice [57,60,61]. Future support strategies should therefore be tailored to specific needs, focusing on peer support, low-maintenance solutions, and integrating biodiversity measures that are multifunctional and support existing routines. Teaching yard owners how to plant a hedge that provides shelter and encourages browsing behavior, create a buffer strip that allows selective hand-grazing, or pollard trees in order to use the cuttings for foraging is likely to engage and motivate them more effectively than relying on theoretical information alone.

However, while motivation and capability stem from within the individual and can often be strengthened through targeted training and support, external factors are less easily controlled and frequently present more persistent barriers. Physical opportunity, i.e., infrastructure, finances, regulations, and access to resources, emerged as the most prevalent and arguably the most pressing constraint across both small and large yards, mirroring findings from the wider agricultural sector [62,63].

“If I hadn’t received that subsidy, I wouldn’t have done it”

(Participant 3, Riding School/Livery)

These findings underline the notion that, even when motivation is high, a lack of relevant physical means can be detrimental to any new initiative. While small yards often pointed to a lack of access to subsidies or starter capital, large yards focused on operational costs and systemic disincentives [64].

Several yard owners described difficulties navigating planning permission, agri-environmental schemes, or nature protection rules. In their own words:

“Everything has to be fought for. That’s what being an entrepreneur means; everything. Every tree, every paddock, every little thing; you really have to battle to get it done. I’d like to see a bit more breathing room. (…) Everything is a struggle. And it really doesn’t have to be that way.”

(Respondent 6, Coaching)

These concerns echo findings by Hedenborg [31] and Elgåker [16] who document the legal ambiguity surrounding equestrian land use across Europe. Such a lack of clear positioning in policy leads to cascading barriers: municipalities lack expertise, resulting in inconsistent interpretations. Subsidies are hard to access and investment risk subsequently increases. These findings strongly support calls for regulatory reform. A sector-specific spatial and subsidy framework, recognizing equine yards as legitimate landscape stewards, would go a long way in reducing opportunity constraints.

The higher order theme of social opportunity showed a mix of supportive and obstructive influences. While some yards had constructive relationships with neighbors, municipalities, or NGOs, many described a lack of recognition of the equine sector as a legitimate environmental stakeholder. Particularly in larger yards, the absence of formal recognition hindered access to networks, schemes, or collaborative opportunities. The realization of such inequities can result in feelings of unfairness, or even jealousy.

“You just want a level playing field. So if my neighbor can plant a hedge without a problem, why can’t I as a horse owner?”

(Respondent 6, Coaching)

This lack of legitimacy and perceived or real inequality will inevitably have consequences. As noted in the agricultural transition literature, social recognition is a critical enabler of change, shaping eligibility, visibility, and credibility [63,65,66]. Without it, equine yards remain isolated, even when motivated. In smaller yards, contractual limitations, particularly for leased land, emerged as a specific barrier. Owners or tenants lacked autonomy to make long-term changes, or feared landlord disapproval. Research by Brück et al. [64] and Sutherland [51] also emphasize tenure insecurity as a barrier to sustainable land use. Importantly, many of these social barriers are interconnected with physical opportunity. Lack of recognition reduces policy inclusion, which limits funding, which then reduces implementation. Tackling social opportunity thus requires both cultural and institutional change, strengthening the equine sector’s position and improving its visibility within sustainable land-use and biodiversity conservation policy frameworks.

While the findings offer insight into behavioral drivers and constraints, some limitations should be acknowledged in interpreting the results. Participants were recruited as part of a larger research project on nature-inclusive equine management. Their emotional involvement with, and reflection on, integrating biodiversity measures on their yards might have resulted in more positive interpretations of the value of biodiversity [67] compared to the broader population of equine yard owners. Future studies should seek to expand on the current methodology, involving additional, different types of equine yard owners, across different countries to enable multi-cultural comparisons.

Also, having two different researchers conduct the interviews may have influenced how participants responded, as the flow and style of an interview are inevitably shaped by the interviewer [68]. To minimize this variation, all interviews were conducted using a consistent script, and the research team held regular feedback sessions to align interviewing techniques as closely as possible.

5. Conclusions

The current study highlights that biodiversity is already embedded in the value systems of many equine yard owners. Rather than being driven by external pressure, most participants viewed biodiversity as part of responsible and sustainable land and animal management. Ecological and welfare goals were not seen as conflicting but mutually reinforcing. While a few participants identified knowledge gaps, these were framed as opportunities for learning, not as barriers to action.

The most frequently mentioned barriers to biodiversity conservation and restoration were structural in nature. Participants referred to a lack of access to funding, unclear regulations, and limited recognition of equine yards within existing policy frameworks. At the same time, the perceived ambiguity surrounding the role the equine sector could play in addressing societal and ecological challenges makes it more difficult to take concrete steps toward structural integration of biodiversity. These constraints were not limited to any one type of yard, but surfaced across the full range of locations, business models, and scales. As such, they appear to reflect broader systemic limitations rather than individual capability or motivation.

A two-pronged approach may be required. On the one hand, developing a stronger, more cohesive identity for the sector, i.e.one that explicitly links biodiversity with equine and human welfare, could help build momentum from within. On the other hand, a more consistent policy approach that explicitly includes equine yards as part of the wider land-use and biodiversity agenda, could help remove some of these barriers. In doing so, it would enable yard owners to implement the types of measures they already value, but currently find difficult to implement. Strengthening this alignment between policy and practice may prove an important step in recognizing the role equine yards can play in landscape quality, biodiversity, and the transition to more sustainable rural systems.

6. Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed to support the adoption of biodiversity-enhancing measures on equine yards and to position equestrian land use as a serious component of sustainable landscape management and biodiversity conservation:

• Integrate biodiversity into equine welfare frameworks

Integrate biodiversity and sustainable land management as a fourth pillar of equine welfare. Diverse, enriched environments offer horses greater behavioral variety, sensory stimulation, and opportunities for natural behaviors such as browsing, seeking shade, or interacting with varied terrain [29,69].

2.

Embed biodiversity restoration and land stewardship into sector governance.

Encourage representative equine organizations (e.g., federations, industry bodies) to make sustainable land management a core policy priority. This includes developing guidelines, offering training, and advocating for the sector’s inclusion in spatial, environmental, and rural development policy [15,70].

3.

Develop equine-specific policy guidance on biodiversity conservation for local governments.

Considering that most local governments lack in-house equine expertise, create overarching, equine-relevant advisory tools that can be distributed across municipalities. These should be adaptable to take into account the primary purpose of the yard or farm, local landscapes and governance contexts. One-size-fits-all solutions risk overlooking the specific needs and practical realities of both equine business owners and the specific natural environments [16].

4.

Recognize equine yard owners as sustainable land managers.

Treat equine yards as legitimate land-based enterprises, with the same access to subsidies, financial incentives, responsibilities, and spatial planning rights as other (agricultural) land users. This includes the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from green-blue infrastructure, ecosystem services and sustainability initiatives [14,31].