The Role of Golf Courses in Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Management

Ecosystems volume 12, pages 191–206 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

We assessed the ecological value of golf courses based on a quantitative synthesis of studies in the scientific literature that have measured and compared biota on golf courses to that of biota in green-area habitats related to other land uses. We found that golf courses had higher ecological value in 64% of comparative cases. This pattern was consistent also for comparisons based on measures of species richness, as well as for comparisons of overall measures of birds and insects—the fauna groups most widely examined in the studies. Many golf courses also contribute to the preservation of fauna of conservation concern. More broadly, we found that the ecological value of golf courses significantly decreases with land types having low levels of anthropogenic impact, like natural and nature-protected areas. Conversely, the value of golf courses significantly increases with land that has high levels of anthropogenic impact, like agricultural and urban lands. From an ecosystem management perspective, golf courses represent a promising measure for restoring and enhancing biodiversity in ecologically simplified landscapes. Furthermore, the review suggests that golf courses hold a real potential to be designed and managed to promote critical ecosystem services, like pollination and natural pest control, providing an opportunity for joint collaboration among conservation, restoration and recreational interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Agresti A. 1990. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley Cop.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alford R.A, Richards S.J. 1999. Global amphibian declines: A problem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 133–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Amick W·W. 1998. Golf Courses on Landfills. In: Graves R M, Cornish GS (eds). Golf course design. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. p239–245.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bennett, G. 2004. Integrating Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use. Lessons Learned from Ecological Networks. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Biesmeijer J.C, Roberts S·P.M, Reemer M, Ohlemüller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, Schaffers AP, Potts SG, Kleukers R, Thomas CD, Settele J, Kunin WE. 2006. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313: 351–354.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Blair R.B. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6: 506–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blair R.B. 1999. Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: Surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecological Applications 9: 164–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Blair R.B. 2001a. Creating a homogenous avifauna. Marzluff JM, In: Bowman R, Donelly R (eds). Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p459–486.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blair R.B. 2001b. Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the Unites States: Is urbanization creating a homogenous fauna? In: Lockwood JL, McKinney MI (eds). Biotic homogenization. New York: Kluwer Acad-Plenum Publishers New York. p33–56.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Blair R.B, Launer A.E. 1997. Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biological Conservation 80: 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brennan A-M. 1992. The management of golf courses as potential nature reserves. Aspects of Applied Biology 29: 241–248.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cane JH. 2001. Habitat fragmentation and native bees: a premature verdict? Conserv Ecol 5(1):3. http//www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art3

    Google Scholar 

  13. Carey P.D, Brown N.J. 1994. The use of GIS to identify sites that will become suitable for a rare orchid, Himantoglossum hircinum L., in a future changed climate. Biodiversity Letters 2: 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen S, Svrjcek A, Durborow T, Barnes N.L. 1999. Water quality impacts on golf courses. Journal of Environmental Quality 28: 798–809.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Colding J. 2007. ‘Ecological land-use complementation’ for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 81: 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Colding J, Lundberg J, Folke C. 2006a. Incorporating green-area user groups in urban ecosystem management. Ambio 35: 237–244.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Colding J, Lundberg J, Lundberg S. 2006b. Urban golf courses can sustain wetland biodiversity. Paper IV. Rethinking urban nature: maintaining capacity for ecosystem service generation in a human dominated world. Doctoral thesis. Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Sweden. ISBN: 91-7155-312-6

  18. Dair I, Schofield J.M. 1990. Nature conservation, legislation and environmental aspects of golf course management in England. In: Cochran AJ (eds). Science and golf. London: E and F·N. Spon. p330–335.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dunning J.B, Danielson B.J, Pulliam H.R. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65: 169–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ehrlich P.R, Raven P·H. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18: 586–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. EIGCA (European Institute of Golf Course Architects). 2007. Golf Statistics Europe 2000. Available at: http://www.eigca.org/index.php

  22. Gange A.C. 1998. Dynamics of heathland conservation on a golf course. In: Cochrane AJ, Farrally M (eds). Science and Golf III. London: Routledge. p704–709.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gange A.C, Lindsay D.E. 2002. Can golf courses enhance local biodiversity? In: Thain E (eds). Science and Golf IV. London: Routledge. p721–736.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gange A.C, Lindsay D.E, Schofield J.M. 2003. The ecology of golf courses. Biologist 50: 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Green B·H, Marshall I·C. 1987. An assessment of the role of golf courses in Kent, England, in protecting wildlife and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 14: 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Heuberger K.A, Putz F.E. 2003. Fire in the suburbs: ecological impacts of prescribed fire in small remnants of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) Sandhill. Restoration Ecology 11: 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hodgkison S·C, Hero J-M, Warnken J. 2007a. The conservation value of suburban golf courses in a rapidly urbanizing region of Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 79: 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hodgkison S·C, Hero J-M, Warnken J. 2007b. The efficacy of small-scale conservation efforts, as assessed on Australian golf courses. Biological Conservation 136: 576–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones S.G, Gordon D.H, Phillips G.M, Richardson B.R.D. 2005. Avian community response to a golf-course landscape unit gradient. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 422–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Joyce S. 1998. Why the grass isn’t always greener. Environmental Health Perspectives 106: A379-A385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kremen C, Williams N.M, Bugg R.L, Fay J.P, Thorp R.W. 2004. The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecology Letters 7: 1109–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lawton J.H, Bignell D.E, Bolton B, Bloemers G.F, Eggleton P, Hammond P.M, Hodda M, Holt R.D, Larsen T.B, Mawdsley N.A, Stork N.E, Srivastava DS, Watt AD. 1998. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391: 72–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. LeClerc J.E, Cristol D.A. 2005. Are golf courses providing habitat for birds of conservation concern in Virginia? Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 463–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. LeClerc J.E, Che J.P·K, Swaddle J.P, Cristol D.A. 2005. Reproductive success and developmental stability of eastern bluebirds on golf courses: evidence that golf courses can be productive. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 483–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lundberg J, Moberg F. 2003: Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: Implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6: 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mackey R.E. 1996. Three end-uses for closed landfills and their impact on the geosynthetic design. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 14: 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Marzluff J.M, Ewing K. 2001. Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: A general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restoration Ecology 9: 280–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McKinney M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52: 883–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Merola-Zwartjes M, DeLong J.P. 2005. Avian species assemblages on New Mexico golf courses: surrogate riparian habitat for birds? Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. National Golf Foundation 2005. National Golf Foundation page summary statistics. www.ngf.org

  42. Neo H. 2001. Sustaining the unsustainable? Golf in urban Singapore. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 8: 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nicholls S, Crompton J.L. 2007. The impact of a golf course on residential property value. Journal of Sport Magazine 21: 555–570.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecol Soc 9(4):2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2

    Google Scholar 

  45. Palmer M.A, Bernhardt E.S, Chornesky E.A, Collins S.L, Dobson A.P, Duke C·S, Gold B.D, Jacobson R.B, Kingsland S.E, Kranz R.H, Mappin M.J, Martinez M.L, Micheli F, Morse J.L, Pace M.L, Pascual M, Palumbi S·S, Reichman O.J, Townsend A.R. 2005. Ecological science and sustainability for the 21st century. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Paton PWC, Egan RS 2002. Strategies to maintain amphibian populations on golf courses. Exploring the roles of golf courses in the environment. USGA Turfgrass Environ Res Online 1(20):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pearce F. 1993. How green is your golf. New Scientist 139: 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rodewald P.G, Santiago M.J, Rodewald A.D. 2005. Habitat use of breeding red-headed woodpeckers on golf courses in Ohio. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 448–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Scott J.M, Davis F·W, McGhie R.G, Wright R.G, Groves C, Estes, J. 2001. Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecological Applications 11: 999–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Scott D.E, Metts B·S, Gibbons J.W. 2002. Seasonal wetlands and golf courses. USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online 1(4): 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Semlitsch R.D, Boone M.D, Bodie J.R. 2007. Golf courses could bolster amphibian communities. USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online 6: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Simberloff D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83: 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Smith M.D, Conway C.J, Ellis L.A. 2005. Burrowing owl nesting productivity: a comparison between artificial and natural burrows on and off golf courses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 454–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sorace A, Visentin M. 2007. Avian diversity on golf courses and surrounding landscapes in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 81: 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stanback M.T, Seifert M.L. 2005. A comparison of eastern bluebird reproductive parameters in golf and rural habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tanner R..A, Gange A.C. 2005. Effects of golf courses on local biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 71: 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Terman M.R. 1997. Natural links: naturalistic golf courses as wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 38: 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Warnken J, Thompson D, Zakus D.H. 2001. Golf course development in a major tourist destination: Implications for planning and management. Environmental Management 27: 681–696.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. White C.L-A, Main M.B. 2005. Waterbird use of created wetlands in golf-course landscapes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 411–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wilcove D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66: 1211–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Winter J.G, Somers K.M, Dillon P.J, Paterson C, Reid R.A. 2002. Impacts on golf courses on macroinvertebrate community structure in Precambrian shield streams. Journal of Environmental Quality 31: 2015–2025.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wood P.J, Greenwood M.T, Barker S.A, Gunn J. 2001. The effects of amenity management for angling on the conservation value of aquatic invertebrate communities in old industrial ponds. Biological Conservation 102: 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Yasuda M, Koike F. 2006. Do golf courses provide a refuge for flora and fauna in Japanese urban landscapes? Landscape and Urban Planning 75: 58–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the Swedish research council Formas for support and also Mistra (the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research) for support to the Stockholm Resilience Centre. We also wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers of this paper for constructive comments. Special thanks go to Gustav Engström and Max Troell at the Beijer Institute for valuable inputs in this research.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Box 5005, Stockholm, Sweden

    Johan Colding & Carl Folke

  2. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

    Johan Colding & Carl Folke

Authors
  1. Johan Colding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carl Folke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Colding.

Additional information

J.C. have designed the study, performed research, the analysis of data and writing the paper, and C.F. has especially contributed to the latter two.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Colding, J., Folke, C. The Role of Golf Courses in Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Management. Ecosystems 12, 191–206 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-008-9217-1

Download citation

Key words

  • golf
  • golf courses
  • biodiversity conservation
  • restoration
  • urban
  • land-use comparison
  • ecosystem services