Content uploaded by Kirrilly Thompson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kirrilly Thompson on Jul 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Animals 2015,5, 561-575; doi:10.3390/ani5030372 OPEN ACCESS
animals
ISSN 2076-2615
www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
Article
A Critical Review of Horse-Related Risk: A Research Agenda
for Safer Mounts, Riders and Equestrian Cultures
Kirrilly Thompson 1,:,*, Paul McGreevy 2,:and Phil McManus 3,:
1The Appleton Institute, Central Queensland University, 44 Greenhill Road, Wayville, SA 5034,
Australia
2Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia;
E-Mail: paul.mcgreevy@sydney.edu.au
3School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia;
E-Mail: phil.mcmanus@sydney.edu.au
:These authors contributed equally to this work.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: kirrilly.thompson@cqu.edu.au;
Tel.: +61-08-8378-4512 (ext. 4512).
Academic Editor: Marina von Keyserlingk
Received: 24 June 2015 / Accepted: 7 July 2015 / Published: 17 July 2015
Abstract: While the importance of improving horse-related safety seems self-evident, no
comprehensive study into understanding or reducing horse-related risk has been undertaken.
In this paper, we discuss four dimensions of horse-related risk: the risk itself, the horse,
the rider and the culture in which equestrian activities takes place. We identify how the
ways in which risk is constructed in each dimension affects the applicability of four basic
risk management options of avoidance, transference, mitigation and acceptance. We find
the acceptance and avoidance of horse-related risk is generally high, most likely due to a
common construction of horses as irrevocably unpredictable, fearful and dangerous. The
transference of risk management is also high, especially in the use of protective technologies
such as helmets. Of concern, the strategy least utilised is risk mitigation. We highlight
the potential benefit in developing mitigation strategies directed at: (a) improving the
predictability of horses (to and by humans), and (b) improving riders’ competence in the
physical skills that make them more resilient to injury and falls. We conclude with the
presentation of a multidisciplinary agenda for research that could reduce accident, injury
and death to horse-riders around the world.
Animals 2015,5562
Keywords: horse-riding; risk; mitigation; culture; research; review; safety; behavior
change; eque-culture; motivator
1. Background
Horse-riding is a hazardous activity. Each year, horse riders are injured, hospitalized or killed as a
result of horse-related accidents and injuries. Despite technological advancements in equestrian safety
equipment [1], horse riding continues to be found more dangerous than motorcycling, skiing, football,
and rugby [2,3]. Whilst injury can occur simply from handling horses [4–7], falling from a horse
constitutes a dangerous fall from height, possibly at speed. A rider’s head can be elevated up to 3 m
from the ground and horses can travel at speeds around 50 km/h. one study of children under 15 years
of age found that a ‘mean Modified Injury Severity Scale score of injured riders was exceeded only by
that of pedestrians struck by a car’ [8] (p. 487).
Improving safety for the millions of horse-riders around the globe is significant for moral, economic,
socio-cultural, and public health reasons. While the importance of improving horse-related safety seems
self-evident, no rigorous study into understanding or reducing horse-related risk has been undertaken
internationally in the academic literature. This may be due to a historical legacy of horse-riding being
a pre-modern sport with a robust culture that accepts the dangers of riding. It may also be due to the
difficulty of analyzing and mitigating the risks inherent in, and generated by, a complex socio-technical
network and interspecies interaction that is historically, socially and culturally constructed. Nonetheless,
complexity must be addressed to enhance the safety of millions of equestrians around the globe.
In this paper, we discuss four inter-related dimensions of horse-related risk: the risk itself, the horse,
the rider and the cultural context through which equestrian activities become meaningful. For each
dimension, we present an overview of current knowledge and offer a list of important questions that
remain. Moreover, we identify the repercussions of how risk has been constructed for each dimension.
Risk management strategies are commonly presented as four options: avoidance, transference (of
responsibility to a third party), mitigation and acceptance [9]. As argued throughout this paper, the
acceptance and avoidance of horse-related risk is high. Horses are frequently constructed as irrevocably
unpredictable and dangerous. As a result, most horse-related safety information concentrates on
avoiding injury by keeping out of horse-related danger. Risk transference is also high, in relation to a
reliance on insurance companies, professional trainers to manage difficult horses or the use of protective
technologies such as helmets, body protectors or even sedative substances. Lowest of all is mitigation,
particularly mitigation directed at: (a) improving the predictability of horses (through making horses
more predictable and making riders more able to predict their behavior); and (b) improving riders’
competence in the physical skills with the explicit intention of making them more resilient to injury
and falls.
To address the questions raised throughout the paper, we conclude with a list of recommended
methods for future data collection. Together, these questions and methods comprise a multidisciplinary
agenda for research that could reduce accident, injury and death to millions of horse-riders around
the world.
Animals 2015,5563
2. Current Knowledge and Critical Questions
2.1. The Risk
As noted above, horses are dangerous and interacting with them is more or less risky. Horses are
often pushed to their physical and physiological limits in equestrian pursuits [10], resulting in risk to
both horses and riders. Research on horse-related risk is biased towards cross-sectional epidemiological
studies of injury type and severity [7], or the efficacy of technical interventions such as frangible pins on
jumping obstacles, helmets and back protectors [8,11–13]. With very little exception [13–15], a focus
on the causes and consequences of horse-related injury rather than prevention, could lead to researchers
being accused of ‘shutting the gate after the horse has bolted’.
Whilst risk analysis is an important aspect of risk research, especially for ranking risk, prioritizing
intervention and evaluating campaigns, risk-reduction requires changing the attitudes and behaviours of
participants in risky activities. Sandman’s model of risk communication is particularly useful in this
regard [16]. According to Sandman, ‘risk’ is most usefully understood not as the standard arithmetical
product of likelihood and consequence of an incident occurring (ISO 31000), but as the cultural sum
of ‘hazard + outrage’. Sandman discusses combinations of high/low risk/outrage on a 2X2 matrix and
their implications for crisis management. For example, the risk of autism being induced by childhood
immunization is a ‘low risk/high outrage’ concern. The cultural response of high outrage outweighs and
overshadows the objective risk but has had a significant impact on rates of failure to immunize.
Horse-related risk can be considered ‘high risk/low outrage’, suggesting a level of wide-spread
recognition of risk but a high degree of acceptance, complacency or inaction. The recommended strategy
for encouraging behaviours that reduce horse-related risk would then be to reduce the risks (see sections
on the rider and the horse below), whilst also increasing outrage (see ‘culture’, below). In particular,
outrage over horse-related injury needs to be increased amongst riders as well as the governments that
have the ability to financially support or legislate for change. As increasing outrage when there is no
available risk mitigation can lead to paralyzing fear and perpetuate complacency, there is a need to fortify
existing technical risk controls with behavioural, physical and cultural controls.
In relation to the risk dimension of horse-related risk, we therefore need to ask: How can horse-related
injuries be prevented?
(a) What contributes to complacency around horse-related risk?
(b) How can outrage over horse-related risk be usefully increased?
(c) What behavioural, physical and cultural controls can supplement existing technical controls?
2.2. The Horse
The risk of horse-related accidents and injury are well known and widely accepted. Risk is frequently
attributed to the ‘nature’ of horses as irrevocably unpredictable, fearful and flight-wired [17]. As
noted by Lawrence, even the most highly trained horses can be treated with suspicion, lest they go
‘feral’ and return to a state of unruly wildness [18]. This essentialist view of horses as more or
less ‘unchangeable’ could explain why horse-related risk intervention is largely technical, and risk
management is avoidance-based (as discussed in more detail below).
Animals 2015,5564
In equestrianism, there has been a strong focus on using personal protective equipment (e.g., helmet,
boots, gloves and, more recently, body protectors) and maintaining horse equipment to safe standards
(e.g., checking stitching on saddlery). Whilst technical intervention has an undeniable role in reducing
the likelihood and consequence of an adverse equestrian event, the voluntary use of basic protective
equipment such as helmets use is low to inconsistent [11,12,15]. Technical intervention should therefore
not overshadow attention to horse behavior, or rider skill (discussed in more detail below).
Overall, there seems to have been more discussion about why horses are dangerous (e.g.,
unpredictable, large and flighty), rather than if, how and to what extent those risk factors can be
mitigated or even controlled. In fact, research suggests that the unpredictability of horses can be reduced
through behavioural interventions and approaches [19]. This is particularly encouraging, given that
a taken-for-granted assumption that horses are irrevocably unpredictable may contribute to a lack of
outrage about current levels of horse-related accident, injury and death. Even if horses are irrevocably
unpredictable based on the innate fears or a prey animal, there has been no consideration of the extent to
which their own need to feel safe could be reconfigured to reduce risk to humans. As noted by McGreevy
and colleagues, ‘the value of safety to animals is often overlooked by trainers and handlers’ [20]. This is
a firm reminder that feelings of risk, fear and safety are at least as important to horses as well as people.
As these equine desires may contribute to risks where their importance goes unrecognized, the corollary
is that they could be used to reduce risk where their importance is accommodated and addressed.
The unpredictability of horses suggests that risks may be higher amongst people with low levels of
knowledge of horse ethology and behaviour, since this can help to anticipate natural but undesirable
equine behaviours and responses. Evidence of breed differences in personality [21] and vision [22] has
been revealed, but there is little guidance on how to use this information to reduce the risks associated
with handling and riding certain horses. One exception is the recent ‘Guide to managing risks when
new and inexperienced persons interact with horses’ [23], that singles out Thoroughbred horses as
unsuitable for beginners. This seminal guide highlights the potential risk reduction benefits of applying
WHS principles to equestrian cultures. In workplaces, workers are given guidance and decision-making
support tools to safely operate dangerous plant, machinery or equipment through the identification and
control of hazards. However, professional, amateur or leisure riders are rarely given decision-making
tools for riding a given horse on a given occasion (i.e., the equivalent of a pre-flight safety check).
Although evidence of its adoption is lacking, the following seven point pre-ride equestrian checklist has
been suggested by Guyton et al. [24]:
(1) Am I wearing adequate protective gear?
(2) Is the tack durable and well-fit to the horse?
(3) Are the environmental conditions (weather, ground footing) safe for riding?
(4) Does the arena contain unfamiliar objects, animals, or people that may alarm the horse?
(5) Is the horse healthy and prepared for riding? Is the mood or behavior of the horse uncharacteristic
or concerning?
(6) Am I healthy and prepared for riding? Do I have an emotional or physical condition that may
impair my ability to safely ride this horse?
(7) Do the horse and I have a healthy relationship? Do I have concerns about my ability to assert
myself with this horse? [24]
Animals 2015,5565
The list is entirely relevant, but can be significantly improved. The first two checks relate to
technology and are under direct control of the human. Checks Three and Four relate to the environment,
over which riders have less control, especially when riding in open spaces. Check Six relates to the rider
but ‘emotional or physical’ condition is rather broad, especially around the degree to which safety is
jeopardized. Checks Five and Seven relate to the horse, but require familiarity with individual horses or a
perceptive eye informed by knowledge of equine behavior. The idea of a ‘healthy relationship’ and being
‘assertive’ are both open to interpretation and relative to different equestrian disciplines. Moreover, being
able to interpret and predict equine behaviour may be a more useful risk-management tool than being
assertive. Check Six relates to the rider, but ‘emotional or physical’ condition is rather broad, especially
around the degree to which safety is jeopardized by particular conditions. Furthermore, Check Six does
not address specific physical skills essential for riding, such as those discussed in more detail below.
Overall, whilst the checklist comprises questions that are undoubtedly important to ask, most if not
all rely on a level of knowledge and expertise in their interpretation and assessment. There is particular
scope to incorporate objective checks of safety, quality of the human-horse relationship and resilience
to external or environmental stimuli. These can be undertaken first from the ground and then under
saddle in a confined area through testing basic responses such as deceleration, acceleration (sometimes
necessary to avoid hazards such as vehicles or other horses), reversing and turning.
Moreover, riders are not routinely given explicit advice on what to do if they assess a horse as unsafe,
i.e., additional controls, alternative (less dangerous) activities, strategies to improve the safety of a mount
(i.e., install robust deceleration responses and habituate the horses to common hazards). Whilst riders
may be given instruction that has the effect of improving safety, it may not be understood or framed
explicitly as a risk-management strategy. Rather, it may be seen as taken for granted tradition or
simply ‘just the way things are done’, as has been found in relation to risk management by volunteer
firefighters [25]. Riders too may already be engaging in risk-reduction practices that are tacit. The
explicit identification of practices that improve safety as risk-reduction strategies may encourage riders
not only to value, improve and maintain high standards of those practices and the horse’s response to
them, but to communicate those practices to other riders to create safer equestrian cultures.
It is tempting to construct the horse as an independent source of risk. Certainly, without a horse
there is no risk. However, from a safety systems perspective, there is a need to recognize the ways
in which risk is generated in, by and through socio-technical networks. Despite the importance of
matching riders with appropriate horses being acknowledged [24] and largely carried out on a basis of
experienced/inexperienced horse/rider [26], there is no widely accepted or validated means of assessing
experience for the purpose of determining safe horse-rider combinations. As environmental conditions
and stressors can impact the behavior of horses and riders, assessment needs to be undertaken in general
as well as on specific occasions, such as during competition, on return to work after an injury or in
unfamiliar surroundings.
In relation to the equine dimension of horse-related risk, we therefore need to ask:
(a) How well do riders understand horse behavior?
(b) How can increasing levels of knowledge about horse behavior improve safety?
(c) Which horses are most likely to be unpredictable for riders (e.g., age, breed, level of experience,
level of horse education, early preparation and history of unwelcome behaviour)
Animals 2015,5566
(d) What physical and behavioural conditioning increases a horse’s predictability or make a horse
reasonably safe to ride?
(e) How might a horse’s preference for ‘safety’ be used to reduce risk?
(f) What benefits may be taken from OHS approaches to safety?
(g) How can a rider assess, train, maintain and improve a horse’s level of risk?
i From the ground
ii From the saddle
(h) What tacit practices do riders currently engage in without being aware of their risk-reduction
benefits, which could be emphasized?
(i) What tools could enable safer matching of horse and rider?
2.3. The Rider
Most—if not all—riders are aware of the risk of equestrian sports and mindful of their own safety [27].
Pony club manuals are replete with references to safe practices around horses [28–30] and the pony
club movement itself has a ‘safety first’ attitude. However, from a risk management perspective,
the most common strategies for improving safety around horses can be characterized as avoidance
strategies—keeping out of harm’s way. Aside from the safe use of safe equipment, being ‘horse safe’
usually refers to how to avoid being kicked, bitten, trampled or crushed. Once again, the reliance
on avoidance rather than control could be a repercussion of the construction of horses as irrevocably
unpredictable. As discussed above, there is very little overt discussion about how to manage or reduce
‘equinogenic’ risk.
Similarly, there is little overt discussion of the physical and postural skills that can increase a rider’s
resilience to injury or falls. Riders communicate to horses through ‘natural aids’; their hands (rein tension
increases for ‘stop’ and ‘turn’), legs (leg pressure increases for ‘go’), seat (classically conditioned weight
and balance cues for ‘stop’ or ‘go’), voice and various ‘artificial aids’ such as whips and spurs. The
self-awareness, timing and accuracy of the application of aids have been related to rider safety, especially
(1) rein pressure [tension and release], (2) leg stability and (3) balance and trunk stability [31]. When
these stimuli are applied incorrectly, inadvertently or simultaneously, they can cause miscommunication,
confusion, discomfort or pain for the horse. The horse may respond with evasive behaviour, resistance
or flight behaviour and anti-predator responses such as rearing, bucking or bolting, potentially leading
to rider injury or even death. Riders’ cues must be applied with awareness, accuracy, timing and
consistency to: (a) avoid or reduce the likelihood of a horse-related incident occurring; and (b) provide
the rider with the ability to safely respond to an untoward incident, thereby reducing the significance of
its consequences [32].
The mensuration of cues from riders’ hands and legs has commenced as part of equitation
science [33]. There may also be benefits in measuring levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety
in riders, as anxiety can impact horse-rider communication by affecting fine motor control and
decision-making [34,35]. High self-efficacy may reduce anxiety [36], although little is known about
riders’ subjective confidence in their proficiency in the application of those cues, based on self-report.
From a psychological perspective, high self-efficacy may mislead riders into over-estimating their safety
and/or taking increased risks [37,38].
Animals 2015,5567
Furthermore, there is a need to know if and how riders associate their physical skills with safety,
especially in some of the more artistic equestrian disciplines such as dressage where a rider’s skills have
significant aesthetic value. There are several well established approaches to improving riding position
such as ‘centred riding’ [39] and ‘riding with your mind’ [40] that focus on riders developing better
feel, relating better with the horse, and becoming more effective as well as feeling and looking more
aesthetically pleasing. The simultaneous effect of these approaches on improving safety is largely taken
for granted and remains to be determined, as does the usefulness of ‘improved safety’ as a means to
motivate riders to adopt such approaches.
In relation to the rider dimension of horse-related risk, we therefore need to ask:
(a) How riders acquire and objectively perform skills related to horse safety?
(b) How riders subjectively self-evaluate the skills essential to horse safety?
(c) If and how riders and trainers associate physical ability with safety?
(d) What is the impact of existing rider position programmes on safety?
2.4. The Culture
As acknowledged by Sandman’s hazard/outrage model descried above, subjective perceptions of risk
do not always align with objective risk calculations [41], and not all strategies that reduce fear actually
reduce risk. Perceptions of risk can have a significant impact on the uptake of safety behaviours and
protective equipment. ‘Safety culture’ is a contested term that has been used in studies of organizational
culture to describe the ways in which workplaces do (or do not) value safety [42,43] or perform on
measures thought to indicate an organisation’s ‘safety climate’ [44]. The concept can be used to consider
the ways in which various equestrian cultures or ‘eque-cultures’ [45] impact on the safety of equestrians,
through cultural variation in risk perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. In relation eque-culture
in general, safety is often poorly evaluated especially at the point of sale [14,46]. This is despite a
growing appreciation of the horse’s need to feel safe [20] and the range of responses a horse offers when
threatened [47]. In relation to racing eque-cultures, the common rehoming of racehorses to novice riders
is one example of a contemporary eque-cultural practice that presents risks to horses and humans. Whilst
the aim is often to reduce the risk of horses being unnecessarily euthanized, this practice may increase
the risk of a horse-related risk or injury to a human, and the potential mistreatment of a horse that is
subsequently labeled ‘dangerous’.
From a more socio-historical standpoint, the romantic cultural construction of horse riding as an
art can also conflict with practical considerations of risk. Since the Classical Greek period and
especially in the renaissance in Europe, equitation has been constructed as an art [48–50]. As with
any artistic endeavor, there is reverence for those who seem blessed with a natural affinity or ‘feel’ that
eludes explanation. In equestrian culture, there has always been an acceptance that some equestrians
have a natural ability to communicate seemingly telepathically with horses such that the two become
one [51,52]. These riders are said to have natural ‘feel’ [26]. However, equitation science is
helping to demystify many of the qualities that distinguish such individuals [32,53–55]. For example,
communication from rider to horse always relies upon at least some form of pressure cues, however
subtle [55]. These cues appear imperceptible in the best cases having been reduced from larger operant
Animals 2015,5568
cues [19] by a process of classical conditioning [56]. Different eque-cultures have different tolerances
for the ‘volume’ of cues to the horse and their visibility to bystanders.
Whilst equitation science has the potential to significantly reduce horse-related injury and death, it
would be disingenuous to present it as a panacea, at least uncritically. In any given population, there will
be varying levels of scientific literacy and diverse attitudes towards ‘scientific’ modes of thought, ranging
from supporters to skeptics. For some riders, the elusive experience of harmony is precisely what attracts
them to horse-riding [51]. For others, instruction from elite competitors is highly valued [26,27]. Some
resist a scientific framework of horse training, preferring leadership narratives that place them above
their horses in a perceived hierarchy [57]. Moreover, research has identified that the desire to achieve a
‘good’ human-horse relationship (or at least to ‘perform’ the achievement of a ‘good’ relationship) can
be a barrier to precautionary behaviour when such riders consider their ‘good’ relationship as evidence
of reduced risk and therefore a reduced need to wear protective equipment such as helmets [15].
This heterogeneity of styles of engagement with equestrianism, or ‘equestrian dispositions’, suggests
that safety information needs to be communicated in forms that resonate with riders of a multitude
of dispositions including scientific and artistic approaches to equitation. Understanding the cultural
specificity and generalizability of eque-cultures and equestrianism more broadly will be crucial to
effectively applying or adapting longstanding behavior change theories and models from health
psychology [58–61]; as well as theories of decision-making and threat and error management from
human factors and safety science [62]. Whilst different equestrian dispositions have been operationalized
from researcher experience [57] and through factor analysis [63], there remains a need to evaluate their
resonance with equestrians themselves. There is a particular need to understand what motivates the
behaviour of different equestrians to identify useful ‘irrelevant motivators’ [64] that could encourage the
adoption of protective behaviours in the short term and cultivate safety values in the medium to long
term. For example, signaling being fashionable or professional may be a powerful motivator for some
riders to wear helmets [65]. Others might be more motivated to wear helmets if they become a symbol of
the ‘toughness’ of their discipline, especially in traditional cowboy equestrian disciplines associated with
masculinity, bravery and resilience [66]. Regardless of the motivation, many riders will be influenced
by their peers, and could be engaged to replicate desired precautionary behaviours through ‘participant
modeling’ [36] by their role models.
In relation to the cultural dimension of horse-related risk, we therefore need to ask:
(a) How do riders perceive equestrianism in general and equitation science in particular?
(b) What are the different styles of engagement with equestrianism?
(c) What are the most powerful motivators for equestrians?
(d) How do riders consume safety-related information?
(e) How are the causes of horse-related injuries and deaths understood by riders?
(f) How is the use of horse safety equipment represented in the horse community?
(g) What are the socio-cultural dimensions and determinants of risk and safety?
(h) What are the socio-cultural barriers and enablers to improve rider safety?
(i) What are the elements of effective behavior change campaigns and programmes that increase
rider safety?
Animals 2015,5569
3. Discussion
In this paper we critically reviewed four dimensions important to horse-related risks to horse riders.
Whilst they were presented discretely, they are mutually inclusive within a complex socio-technical
network and interspecies interaction that is historically, socially and culturally constructed. In relation to
the dimensions of risk, horses, riders and culture, we found that research on risk explains the intricacies
of what can go wrong, how often and what the consequences are. Research on horses is also problem
focused, arguing why horses are a source of risk. These biases favour risk-management options of
acceptance and avoidance. To take full advantage of risk-management strategies of mitigation, further
research is required on the extent to and ways in which the behavior of horses can be made more
predictable, and riders can be made more capable of predicting their behaviour. There is also a need
for research evaluating rider proficiency at performing and self-assessing the physical skills that increase
resilience to horse-related injury whilst riding. Finally, we considered the unavoidable and omnipotent
cultural context that affects riders’ behaviours, values, attitudes and beliefs regarding risk and safety.
Inconsistent levels of voluntary helmet use suggest that increasing the safety of eque-cultures and
equestrianism in general will require external legislation and internal transformation. Overall, we found
enormous potential for reducing horse-related risk through the risk management strategy of mitigation.
For each element of horse-related risk, we presented a list of research questions. Together, they
comprise a multidisciplinary agenda for further research that could significantly reduce accident, injury
and death to millions of horse-riders around the world. As these questions are multi-disciplinary, so too
do they require data from various sources, including but not limited to:
‚Surveys and questionnaires—to obtain a wider perspective on a range of issues, and to generate
quantitative results for policy development and advocacy around horse and rider safety [67,68].
‚Interviews and focus groups—to explore controversial subjects that pertain to risk and safety of
both the horse and rider [45,69].
‚Ethnographic research—to study the actual practices of equestrians; and identify risk management
strategies consistent with the motivations, beliefs and values of eque-cultures [26,70–73].
‚Media analysis—to identify how particular incidents and risks are reported (or not reported) and
relationships to the values, beliefs and practices of equestrians [15,67,74,75].
‚Physiometry—to measure rider position and identify physical attributes positively correlated with
safety or resistance to being unseated [33,76–78].
‚Psychometric research into fear [79], risk-taking propensity [80,81] and sensation seeking [82]
amongst riders and equestrian discipline—to identify target groups and tailor behavior change
interventions [38,83].
‚Analysis of accident and injury reports (i.e., from inquests, insurance records and hospital
admission data)—to enable triangulation of objective and self-report data, especially around
risk [6,84,85].
‚Inferential modeling - to determine predictors of risk and safety, animal attachment and target
group archetyping [86,87].
Animals 2015,5570
To ensure that data are translated into effective safety intervention tools that can reduce numbers
of horse-related injury and death, researchers should focus on developing initiatives that (a) increase
outrage about preventable horse-related injury and death, and (b) reduce horse-related risk, such as:
‚Ethical techniques and behavioral interventions to increase the predictability of horses
‚Interventions to improve riders’ ability to predict horse behaviour
‚Horse safety assessment and decision-making support tools
‚Rider safety skills assessment tools
‚Validated measure of horse training/riding style
‚Behavior change for safe equestrian cultures
4. Conclusion: Horse/Human-Related Risk/Safety
As demonstrated throughout this paper, horse-related risk is generated through a complex
socio-technical network of risk, horses, humans and culture. Whilst these dimensions have
been recognized and in some cases researched, horse-related risk has typically been constructed
anthropocentrically; it originates in horses and it impacts humans. Moreover, safety is largely seen as a
concern for humans only, despite a desire for safety being a powerful driver of ‘unpredictable’ behavior
in horses (and an excellent reward for behavioural interventions). To overcome these biases, there is
apparent advantage in the widespread adoption of a more anthrozoological approach to horse-related
risk that includes human-related risk as well as human/horse-related safety. With human-horse safety
as the ultimate goal, this paper has identified unrealised opportunity to mitigate horse-related risk with
behavioural, physical and socio-cultural interventions that could make horses safer mounts, humans safer
riders, and equestrianism a safer culture.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Holly Bowen for her assistance in the preparation and proofreading
of this manuscript.
Author Contributions
Thompson conceived this article. All authors contributed to the writing and approval of the
article’s content.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Foote, C.; Gibson, T.; McGuaran, P. Health and Safety in Australian Racing-Evaluation of Safety
Vests; Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia, 2014.
2. Ball, C.G.; Ball, J.E.; Kirkpatrick, A.W.; Mulloy, R.H. Equestrian injuries: Incidence, injury
patterns, and risk factors for 10 years of major traumatic injuries. Amer. J. Surg. 2007,193,
636–640. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 2015,5571
3. Paix, B.R. Rider injury rates and emergency medical services at equestrian events. Brit. J. Sport.
Med. 1999,33, 46–48. [CrossRef]
4. Nunnink, L.; Abu-Zidan, F. Accidental carotid artery injury caused by a horse rope. Brit. J. Sports
Med. 2003,37, 460–461. [CrossRef]
5. Exadaktylos, A.K.; Eggli, S.; Inden, P.; Zimmermann, H. Hoof kick injuries in unmounted
equestrians. Improving accident analysis and prevention by introducing an accident and emergency
based relational database. Emerg. Med. J. 2002,19, 573–575. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Thomas, K.E.; Annest, J.L.; Gilchrist, J.; Bixby-Hammett, D.M. Non-fatal horse related injuries
treated in emergency departments in the united states, 2001–2003. Brit. J. Sports Med. 2006,40,
619–626. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Carmichael, S.P., II; Davenport, D.L.; Kearney, P.A.; Bernard, A.C. On and off the horse:
Mechanisms and patterns of injury in mounted and unmounted equestrians. Injury 2014,45,
1479–1483.
8. Bond, G.R.; Christoph, R.A.; Rodgers, B.M. Pediatric equestrian injuries: Assessing the impact of
helmet use. Pediatrics 1995,95, 487–489. [PubMed]
9. Hillson, D. Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. Int. J. Project Manag. 2002,20,
235–240. [CrossRef]
10. McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D. Ethical equitation: Capping the price horses pay for human glory.
J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2010,5, 203–209. [CrossRef]
11. Nelson, D.E.; Rivara, F.P.; Condie, C. Helmets and horseback riders. Am. J. Prev. Med. 1994,10,
15–19. [PubMed]
12. Finch, C.; Watt, G. Locking the Stable Door: Preventing Equestrian Injuries; Monash University
Accident Research Centre: Clayton, Australia, 1996.
13. Condie, C.; Rivara, F.P.; Bergman, A.B. Strategies of a successful campaign to promote the use of
equestrian helmets. Public Health Rep. 1993,108, 121–126. [PubMed]
14. Hawson, L.A.; Oddie, C.; McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D. Is safety valued in the australian pony
market? J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2010,6, 254–260. [CrossRef]
15. Haigh, L.; Thompson, K. Helmet use amongst equestrians: Harnessing social and attitudinal factors
revealed in online forums. Animals 2015,5, 576–591.
16. Sandman, P.M. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication;
The American Industrial Hygiene Association: Fairfax, VA, USA, 1993.
17. LeGuin, E. Man and horse in harmony. In The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline, and
Identity in the Early Modern World; Raber, K., Tucker, T.J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: New York,
NY, USA, 2005; pp. 175–196.
18. Lawrence, E.A. Rodeo: An anthropologist looks at the wild and the tame; University of Chicago
Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1982.
19. Hawson, L.A.; McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D. The roles of equine ethology and applied learning
theory in horse-related human injuries. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2010,5, 324–338.
[CrossRef]
Animals 2015,5572
20. McGreevy, P.D.; Henshall, C.; Starling, M.J.; McLean, A.N.; Boakes, R.A. The importance of
safety signals in animal handling and training. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2014,9, 382–387.
[CrossRef]
21. Lloyd, A.S.; Martin, J.E.; Bornett-Gauci, H.L.I.; Wilkinson, R.G. Horse personality: Variation
between breeds. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008,112, 369–383. [CrossRef]
22. Evans, K.; McGreevy, P. The distribution of ganglion cells in the equine retina and its relationship
to skull morphology. Anat. Histol. Embryol. 2007,36, 151–156. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Safe Work Australia. Guide to Managing Risks When New and Inexperienced Persons Interact with
Horses; Safe Work Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2014.
24. Guyton, K.; Houchen-Wise, E.; Peck, E.; Mayberry, J. Equestrian injury is costly, disabling, and
frequently preventable: The imperative for improved safety awareness. Amer. Surg. 2013,79,
76–83.
25. Dawson, D.; Mayger, K.; Thomas, M.J.; Thompson, K. Fatigue risk management by volunteer
fire-fighters: Use of informal strategies to augment formal policy. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 2015. in
press.
26. Thompson, K.; Birke, L. The horse has got to want to help: Human-animal habituses and networks
in amateur show jumping. In Sport, Animals, and Society; Gillett, J., Gilbert, M., Eds.; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 69–84.
27. Thompson, K.; Nesci, C. Over-riding concerns: Developing safe relations in the high-risk
interspecies sport of eventing. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2013, 2013. [CrossRef]
28. Knox-Thompson, E.; Dickens, S. Pony Club Manual No. 1: D and C Certificates; Ray Richards
Publisher: Auckland, New Zealand, 1994.
29. Knox-Thompson, E.; Dickens, S. Pony Club Manual No. 2: C+, B, A And H Certificates; Ray
Richards Publisher: Auckland, New Zealand, 1994.
30. Knox-Thompson, E.; Dickens, S. Pony Club Manual No. 3: For Instructors; Ray Richards
Publisher: Auckland, New Zealand, 1993.
31. Wolframm, I. The Science of Equestrian Sports: Theory, Practice and Performance of the
Equestrian Rider; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013.
32. McGreevy, P.D.; Murphy, J. Equitation science offers new horizons in the understanding of equine
performance and horse-human relationships. Vet. J. 2009,181, 1–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Pierard, M.; Hall, C.; von Borstel, U.K.; Averis, A.; Hawson, L.; McLean, A.; Nevison, C.;
Visser, K.; McGreevy, P. Evolving protocols for research in equitation science. J. Vet. Behav.
Clin. Appl. Res. 2015,10, 255–266. [CrossRef]
34. Miu, A.C.; Heilman, R.M.; Houser, D. Anxiety impairs decision-making: Psychophysiological
evidence from an iowa gambling task. Biol. Psychol. 2008,77, 353–358. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Paus, T. Primate anterior cingulate cortex: Where motor control, drive and cognition interface. Nat.
Rev. Neurosci. 2001,2, 417–424. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977,84,
191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Rimal, R.N.; Real, K. Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change. Hum. Commun.
Res. 2003,29, 370–399. [CrossRef]
Animals 2015,5573
38. Beauchamp, M.R.; Whinton, L.C. Self-efficacy and other-efficacy in dyadic performance: Riding
as one in equestrian eventing. J. Sport Exercise Psychol. 2005,27, 245–252.
39. Swift, S. Centred Riding; William Heinemann Ltd.: London, UK, 1985.
40. Wanless, M. Ride with Your Mind: A Right Brain Approach to Riding; Methuen Publishing Ltd.:
York, UK, 1987.
41. Lupton, D. Risk; Routledge: London, UK, 1999.
42. Hopkins, A. Studying organisational cultures and their effects on safety. Saf. Sci. 2006,44,
875–889. [CrossRef]
43. Haukelid, K. Theories of (safety) culture revisited-an anthropological approach. Saf. Sci. 2008,46,
413–426. [CrossRef]
44. Cooper, M.D.; Phillips, R.A. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior
relationship. J. Safety Res. 2004,35, 497–512. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. McManus, P.; Albrecht, G.; Graham, R. The Global Horseracing Industry: Social, Economic,
Environmental and Ethical Perspectives; Routledge: London, UK, 2013.
46. McGreevy, P.D.; Oddie, C.F.; Hawson, L.A.; McLean, A.N.; Evans, D.L. Do vendors value safety
in thoroughbred horses in the australian recreational riding horse market? J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl.
Res. 2014,10, 153–157. [CrossRef]
47. McGreevy, P.D.; Oddie, C.; Burton, F.L.; McLean, A.N. The horse-human dyad: Can we align
horse training and handling activities with the equid social ethogram? Vet. J. 2009,181, 12–18.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Raber, K.; Tucker, T.J. The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline, and Identity in the Early
Modern World; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
49. van Orden, K. From gens d’armes to gentilshommes: Dressage, civility, and the ballet à cheval. In
The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline, and Identity in the Early Modern World; Raber, K.,
Tucker, T.J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 197–222.
50. Xenophon. The Art of Horsemanship; J.A. Allen & Co.: London, UK, 1962.
51. Thompson, K. Theorising rider-horse relations: An ethnographic illustration of the centaur
metaphor in the spanish bullfight. In Theorising Animals; Taylor, N., Signal, T., Eds.; Brill: Leiden,
the Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 221–253.
52. Game, A. Riding: Embodying the centaur. Body Soc. 2001,7, 1–12. [CrossRef]
53. Goodwin, D.; McGreevy, P.; Waran, N.; McLean, A. How equitation science can elucidate and
refine horsemanship techniques. Vet. J. 2009,181, 5–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Henshall, C.; McGreevy, P.D. The role of ethology in round pen horse training-a review. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014,155, 1–11. [CrossRef]
55. Boot, M.; McGreevy, P.D. The x files: Xenophon re-examined through the lens of equitation
science. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2015,8, 367–375. [CrossRef]
56. McGreevy, P.; Boakes, R.; Boakes, R.A. Carrots and Sticks: Principles of Animal Training;
Darlington Press: Sydney, Australia, 2011.
57. DeAraugo, J.; McLean, A.; McLaren, S.; Caspar, G.; McLean, M.; McGreevy, P. Training
methodologies differ with the attachment of humans to horses. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res.
2014,9, 235–241. [CrossRef]
Animals 2015,5574
58. Gielen, A.C.; Sleet, D. Application of behavior-change theories and methods to injury prevention.
Epidemiol. Rev. 2003,25, 65–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control: From
Cognition to Behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckman, J., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 1985;
pp. 11–39.
60. Prochaska, J.O.; DiClemente, C.C.; Norcross, J.C. In search of how people change: Applications
to addictive behaviors. Amer. Psychol. 1992,47, 1102–1114. [CrossRef]
61. Fishbein, M. A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebr. Symp. Motiv.
1980,27, 65–116. [PubMed]
62. Helmreich, R.L.; Davies, J.M. Culture, threat, and error: Lessons from aviation. Can. J. Anesth.
2004,51, R1–R4. [CrossRef]
63. Visser, E.K.; Van Wijk-Jansen, E.E.C. Diversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare:
An explorative study. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2012,7, 295–304. [CrossRef]
64. Sandman, P.M. Media Campaigns. Environmental Education & Communication for a Sustainable
World; Academy for Educational Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 79–84.
65. Veblen, T. The Theory of a Leisure Class; Penguin Books: New York, NY, USA, 1899.
66. Busick, J. Getting workers to wear ppe: Communication is key. Safety Compliance Letter, 2005,
Available online: http://www.psandman.com/articles/Busick.pdf(accessed on 14 July 2015).
67. McManus, P.; Graham, R. Horse racing and gambling: Comparing attitudes and preferences of
racetrack patrons and residents of sydney, australia. Leisure Stud. 2014,33, 400–417. [CrossRef]
68. Thompson, K.; Matthews, C. Inroads into equestrian safety: Rider-reported factors contributing to
horse–related accidents and near misses on Australian roads. Animals 2015,5, 592–609.
69. Chapman, C.; Musselwhite, C.B.A. Equine road user safety: Public attitudes, understandings and
beliefs from a qualitative study in the united kingdom. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 2011,43, 2173–2181.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Cassidy, R.L. Horse People: Thoroughbred Culture in Lexington and Newmarket; John Hopkins
University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2010.
71. Krumeich, A.; Weijts, W.; Reddy, P.; Meijer-Weitz, A. The benefits of anthropological approaches
for health promotion research and practice. Health Educ. Res. 2001,16, 121–130. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
72. Thompson, K. For pets’ sake, save yourself: Motivating emergency and disaster preparedness
through relations of animal guardianship. Autr. J. Emerg. Manag. 2015,30, 43–46.
73. Brandt, K. A language of their own: An interactionist approach to human-horse communication.
Soc. Anim. 2004,12, 299–316. [CrossRef]
74. Montoya, D.; McManus, P.; Albrecht, G. Jumping to conclusions? Media coverage of jumps racing
debates in australia. Soc. Anim. 2012,20, 273–293. [CrossRef]
75. McManus, P.; Montoya, D. Toward new understandings of human-animal relationships in sport: A
study of australian jumps racing. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2012,13, 399–420. [CrossRef]
76. Eckardt, F.; Münz, A.; Witte, K. Application of a full body inertial measurement system in dressage
riding. J. Equine. Vet. Sci. 2014,34, 1294–1299. [CrossRef]
Animals 2015,5575
77. Janura, M.; Peham, C.; Dvorakova, T.; Elfmark, M. An assessment of the pressure distribution
exerted by a rider on the back of a horse during hippotherapy. Hum. Movement Sci. 2009,28,
387–393. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Peham, C.; Kotschwar, A.B.; Borkenhagen, B.; Kuhnke, S.; Molsner, J.; Baltacis, A. A comparison
of forces acting on the horse’s back and the stability of the rider’s seat in different positions at the
trot. Vet. J. 2010,184, 56–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Tsohantaridis, V.A. Development of the Jewel Equestrian Scale. Unpublished Thesis, George Fox
University, Portland, OR, USA, 2004.
80. Lyng, S. Edgework: A social psychological analysis of voluntary risk taking. Amer. J. Sociol.
1990,95, 851–886. [CrossRef]
81. Giulianotti, R. Risk and sport: An analysis of sociological theories and research agendas. Sociol.
Sport J. 2009,26, 540–556.
82. Zuckerman, M.; Neeb, M. Sensation Seeking and Psychopathology; Hogrefe & Huber Publishers:
Washington, DC, USA, 1979.
83. Wolframm, I.A.; Shearman, J.; Micklewright, D. A preliminary investigation into pre–competitive
mood states of advanced and novice equestrian dressage riders. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 2010,22,
333–342. [CrossRef]
84. McManus, P.; Graham, R.; Ruse, K. The construction of human-animal relations. National jumps
day 2013 at Te Rapa, Hamilton, New Zealand. N. Z. Geographer 2014,70, 190–200. [CrossRef]
85. Lawrence, K.; McManus, P. Towards household sustainability in sydney? Impacts of two
sustainable lifestyle workshop programs on water consumption in existing homes. Geogr. Res.
2008,46, 314–332. [CrossRef]
86. Trigg, J.; Smith, B.; Thompson, K. Does emotional closeness to pets motivate their inclusion in
bushfire survival plans? Implications for emergency communicators. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag.
2015,30, 24–30.
87. Trigg, J.; Thompson, K.; Smith, B.; Bennett, P. Engaging pet owners in disaster risk and
preparedness communications: Simplifying complex human–animal relations with archetypes.
Environ. Hazards 2015. [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
