Golf courses: economic benefit without an environmental cost?

By Whitney Nekoba
Swarthmore College ‘08
Spring 2007

Presented 10 April 2007 for ENVS 2: Human Nature, Technology, and the Environment

Suggested Readings

Hildebrandt, T. (2003). What if all China golfed? Prospects for an environmentally-friendly and conflict-free golf industry in China. China Environment Series Issue 6, 125-131.

Ng, S. (7 May 2004). At golf, China swings – and misses. Asia Times Online. Accessed 3 April 2007. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FE07Ad01.html

Wexler, M. (25 June 2004). Travel column: Greener golf is growing – slowly. National Geographic News Online. Accessed 3 April 2007. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0625_040625_golfcourses.html

Summary by Article

Hildebrandt:

I suggested this article for discussion to be used as an overview of the golf industry scene.  Although based in Asia, the politics and economic issues that Hildebrandt raises are pertinent globally.  In increase in popularity of golf in China has shown the most recent impact on the environment that must sustain it.  Two important environmental issues related to the construction and maintenance of golf courses are water use and pesticide use.  This is a reoccurring theme in most articles about environmental impact of links.  Hildebrandt’s article suggests “that 3000 cubic meters of water are needed to maintain an 18-hole golf course in the United States – the same amount of water is sufficient to meet the daily needs of 15 000 people” (126).  However, water is not as conserved on Asian turf, thus a Thai course will “use nearly 6500 cubic meters of water per day, enough water for 60 000 rural villagers” (126).  In regards to pesticide use, “on the Japanese island of Hokkaido, golf course managers used organic copper compounds to keep non-native grasses from rotting.  The runoff reached nearby lakes, killing over 90 000 fish” (126).  Not only do golf courses play a role in environmental degradation, but also in social inequality.  “Some in Asia see golf as a symbol of the growing disparity between rich and poor – despite the expected growth of the industry, the vast majority of the region’s population will never step foot on a golf course, let alone grab a club” (127).  Residents living in poor and rural areas are being evicted from their land as real estate construction and corporations encroach and overpower cheap and profitable soil.  Although global organizations are encouraging developers to work more closely with local communities and evade needed ecosystems, these measures are expensive and optional.

Ng:

Ng’s article focuses on the economic disparity between the rich and poor of China’s people.  Although China’s interest in the sport has escaladed, green fees remain so steep that only the privileged are able to enjoy the Western game.  Also, as developers search for cheaper land, construction sites rip agricultural land away from China’s citizenry.  With heavy costs and an inadequate population that can afford the membership and fees, links are financially suffering and must raise prices in response.  “Amid the maintenance costs, the most expensive item is grass preservation, which involves fertilizing, spraying chemicals, such as pesticides, and, most importantly, watering.  Water is expensive and chemical sprays many times have hurt the local environment.  Both of these factors impose a huge cost on any golf course, a cost that is usually paid by taxpayers” (para. 15).  Ng also asserts that developers are more interested in the ability for high-priced real estate with nearby golf course accessibility, rather than the course itself.  China’s politicians assert that a larger golf scene will promote the city’s image and accommodate services for businessmen and politicians, without regard for environmental issues.

Wexler:

Wexler first raises the question, “Is it possible to have greener golf?”  The idea is a prevalent and persistent thought for many conservationists and eco-friendly golf course managers.  An example of an eco-friendly golf course is Widow’s Walk.  Wexler describes the course in detail and how it creates less impact on its landscape and surroundings.  Touting Arnold Palmer, the author quotes him saying, “I hope that the golf industry will make an even greater effort.  I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of every golf-course architect and builder to protect the natural beauty of the land” (para. 8).  However, many architects and managers feel the pressure to emulate the pristine and perfect golf courses seen on television.  The societal need to rise to these unmatchable standards drives the need for more watering and pesticide treatment.  Wexler cites Jay Feldman with the irony that “People move into golf-course communities to be near the outdoors but sometimes end up prone to off-target drift and to runoff of pesticides from some of the most intensively treated land area in the United States” (para. 12).  Eco-friendly golf course architects and managers should be applauded for their concerted effort to ensure ecosystem sustainability as well as economic stability.

Discussion Questions

• Will Asia’s developers ever fully adopt these environmental measures for healthier golf courses, even if it costs more money (Hildebrandt)?
• Can environment-friendly management be economical too (Hildebrandt)?  Would it ever become more cost-effective?
• Do the economic benefits of golf in China outweigh the environmental hazards (Ng)?
• Malaysia and Thailand can have low tee fees, why does China have such high fees (Ng)?
• Does Widow’s Walk compare to the luxury golf courses in other parts of the United States (Wexler)?  Would golfers be attracted to a greener course? 
• Is it possible to have greener golf (Wexler)?
• Do many people think about the negative environmental impact that nearby golf courses have on their land or homestead (Wexler)?
• Should there be universal environmental standards for golf courses (Wexler)?  What environmental standards should be implemented for all golf courses?

Class Thoughts and Further Questions

• Most of the discussion lay in the arena of surprise at how bad golf courses are for the environment and the extent of the problem.
• Frequently mentioned problems included the scare of carcinogenic chemicals, manager health, and the prevalence of lung cancer.
• Although golf courses could be seen as adding water to needed land and introducing new species, it is not always a good thing.
• Positives of golf courses: promoting a nicer landscape; possibly turning a junkyard into a sustainable ecosystem; it is better than a nasty alternative; and provides open space for a forest in the future.
• The reason to promote golf courses could be seen anthropologically as a promotion of excitement for participation, whereas people view agricultural land as boring and non utilitarian.
• Asian developers will most likely develop more environmental measure for healthier golf courses, but not in the near future.  This is due to the high green fees, the need to increase appeal because they are losing money with low membership.  They are currently operating at a loss and eco-friendly golf is probably not appealing to businessmen.
• Businessmen want to see beauty at any cost, and do not want to take clients to a golf course with brown patches, even if eco-friendly.  The idea of tourism as eco-tourism can be promoted to non-Asian golfers, but it is a hard sell.
• Interestingly, many scientists and engineers are in political power, but no environmental mandates are being implemented – could it be that local governments overrule national governance?
• When asked if the economic benefits of golf courses outweigh the environmental hazards, frequent responses were: regarding the tragedy of citizens’ land displacement and its inability to provide adequate repayment; to employ displaced people, the appearance of job placement and bad health is not appealing enough; the corruption of the government overpowers the bureaucracy of the people.
• Most developers are not building golf courses for golf, but for real estate.  Property values rise with economic prosperity.  Although there is a loss now, there is a potential for gain later.  The focus is not on golf, but on the land.
• China should just cut their losses and get rid of golf rather than raise prices in hopes to spark the economy.  Malaysia and Thailand golf courses are cheaper, nicer, and have the climate to help them.  China has geographic problems and there is an obvious eco-impact.  Also, the water use problems provide impact on farmers’ land, potable sources, and dams.  Water is a market commodity.
• Is there a tech fix in the future?  Genetically modified grass that does not require so much water? 
• There still is a need for water allocation, which is a net loss, and tourism is not worth it.
• For greener golf courses, there is still the joy of golf, with an environmental return.  Yet, the popularity still lies in the socioeconomic class mindsets.  Seems like a premature “organic food” or “dolphin-safe tuna” argument.
• To promote greener golf, the PGA and well-known golfers should endorse it to spread the education to the masses.
• Greener golf is still using water, pesticides in the area.  The question remains on How much do we as a society value the game of golf?
• Right now, the health and environmental factors of golf courses are not big issues with golfers.  This is probably because there is not enough information and education for change.  These facts must become public knowledge. 
• It may be helpful to integrated environmental codes into the golf ethics code, in which golf is a game of honor.
• If rich golfers are getting cancer and other health problems, they will start to care, but there is not enough incentive to care now.
• It would be difficult for international rules for environmental regard in golf courses to be implemented.  Tournaments can instill these rules, but rich people will do whatever they want at their individual autonomy.
• The responsibility is on the cliental, where education will be the moral sway. 
• There should be environmental standards for golf courses.

Additional Literary Resources

Choi, J, & Kwon, Y. H. (2006). Comparative study on the environmental impact assessment of golf course development between Korea and China. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 2, 21-29.

Schonhardt, S. (24 April 2004). Thailand, the fairway to heaven. Asia Times Online. Accessed 5 April 2007. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FD24Ae02.html

Tenenbaum, D. J. (2000). Trampling paradise: Dream vacation – environmental nightmare? Environmental Health Perspectives 108(5), A214-A219.

Warnken, J., Thompson, D., & Zakus, D. H. (2001). Golf course development in a major tourist destination: Implications for planning and management. Environmental Management, 27(5), 681-696.

Link back to Whitney's main page