Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 191–206 | Cite as

The Role of Golf Courses in Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Management

  • Johan ColdingEmail author
  • Carl Folke
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.

Key words

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

Notes

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.

Supplementary material

10021_2008_9217_MOESM1_ESM.doc (32 kb)
(DOC 32 kb)

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair R.B. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6: 506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair R.B. 1999. Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: Surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecological Applications 9: 164–170.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colding J. 2007. ‘Ecological land-use complementation’ for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 81: 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colding J, Lundberg J, Folke C. 2006a. Incorporating green-area user groups in urban ecosystem management. Ambio 35: 237–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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: 91-7155-312-6Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ehrlich P.R, Raven P·H. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18: 586–608.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joyce S. 1998. Why the grass isn’t always greener. Environmental Health Perspectives 106: A379-A385.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lundberg J, Moberg F. 2003: Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: Implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6: 87–98.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKinney M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52: 883–890.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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):1–7Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sorace A, Visentin M. 2007. Avian diversity on golf courses and surrounding landscapes in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 81: 81–90.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tanner R..A, Gange A.C. 2005. Effects of golf courses on local biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 71: 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Terman M.R. 1997. Natural links: naturalistic golf courses as wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 38: 183–197.CrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilcove D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66: 1211–1214.CrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Beijer Institute of Ecological EconomicsRoyal Swedish Academy of SciencesStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm Resilience CentreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations