 |
GCSAA update |
Data deluge
 |
When asked about environmental improvements they have made, 65 percent of respondents to the first phase of GCSAA’s Golf Course Environmental Profile reported upgrading golf course irrigation systems. GCM file photo |
The first phase of GCSAA’s Golf Course Environmental Profile is a major step toward portraying golf’s ‘big picture.’
The proof is finally in the pudding for the golf course industry, thanks to long hours in the kitchen by GCSAA and friends.
The first leg of the much-anticipated, first-of-its-kind Golf Course Environmental Profile has been rolled out for public consumption. The results are appetizing, and for the most part, fulfilling for golf. (See the full report at www.eifg.org/programs/baselinesurvey.asp.)
The project, which began nearly two years ago and has no end-game readily in sight, entails a series of surveys of superintendents and/or golf facilities nationwide. The first survey, reviewed in this article, featured golf course land-use characteristics and environmental stewardship. Two others have been completed in the interim — one regarding water use and conservation and another concerning fertilizer use. Next month a fourth phase focusing on pesticide use will be launched (see Page 22 in the Front Nine section of this issue of GCM). One or two more surveys are planned in the near future.
The nitty-gritty
The ongoing project is intended to provide substantive data to complement the immense amount of time and money already spent throughout the industry on researching golf’s impact on the environment. Through the efforts of GCSAA and its Environmental Institute for Golf and the investment of many thousands of dollars by The Toro Foundation, that vital information is now forthcoming to enhance the golf course management profession in particular and the golf industry in general.
 |
Greg Lyman (center left), GCSAA’s director of environmental programs, and Clark Throssell, Ph.D., (next to Lyman) the association’s research director, see the Golf Course Environmental Profile as an opportunity for the golf course industry to be portrayed accurately and fairly. |
“These surveys are, first and foremost, to provide an accurate description of what a golf course is and what management practices are used on a golf course,” says Clark Throssell, Ph.D., director of research for GCSAA. “A lot of people take shots at golf courses, and it’s been really hard for us to come back and address those concerns because we haven’t had data to show what’s really going on. But now, if concerns come up about golf courses or the industry in general, we have data that give the correct information and portray the industry accurately and fairly.”
Throssell adds that the project has also become a response to several environmental advocacy groups that have served on GCSAA committees or programs and have in the past noted that the industry’s efforts are blunted by lack of documentation of environmental improvements over time.
“That’s a fair question,” he says. “Now we’ve established a baseline to compare to as we go forward and say the industry is making progress in those areas. This research can guide our environmental efforts where we’re doing well, need to continue to do well and where the golf industry needs to be more aware.”
Another key figure in implementing the project and analyzing its findings is Greg Lyman, GCSAA’s director of environmental programs, who adds: “Superintendents have stepped up and have openly and honestly identified what they do on their properties with the idea to get better at what they do. ... In the next couple of years, people will absorb the information and begin to make use of it.”
The means to an end
The first survey, the property profile, as Throssell calls it, set the methodology guidelines for the subsequent phases. Using its expertise in harvesting golf industry statistics, the National Golf Foundation sent queries to superintendents at 16,000 facilities. Nearly 3,000 responded, which is a solid participation rate of more than 18 percent. The data were arranged by geographic and agronomic region, course type, maintenance budget and number of holes (including 18-hole equivalents). Participation was heaviest in regions with the most golf facilities.
Besides NGF’s administration and Toro’s funding, GCSAA benefited from the assistance of key allies such as the USGA and Audubon International in providing survey input and content review, as well as encouraging superintendents to participate.
Both Throssell and Lyman have been pleased with the overall response. The participation in the second and third surveys was only a fraction lower than in the first phase. “It’s been great. It shows superintendents are taking this to heart and are trying to improve their profession,” Throssell says.
As for the survey’s uniqueness on a national scale, Throssell points to the section on maintained turf on U.S. golf courses as a prime example.
“The turf scientist in me is really thrilled that for the first time we can tell people about how many acres of different turf species there are growing on golf courses in this country,” he says. “We’ve never had that information before. It’s really helpful.”
Suspicions confirmed
Both GCSAA directors are especially upbeat by the show of environmental stewardship in the survey that goes far beyond concerns to the contrary. Nearly all respondents (96 percent) said they had made at least one improvement for environmental protection in the past 10 years and more than 50 percent said they had completed five or more improvements in that time. Also, close to half of the superintendents have increased their non-turf landscapes by an average of nearly 10 acres since 1996.
“There are definitely proactive efforts on golf courses, confirming the concept held by many that superintendents improving their properties is not uncommon,” Lyman says. “I also think the work done outside the lines of play is really interesting and revealing. It helps fortify the notion that the golf course can be a valuable green space.”
Lyman notes that the stewardship numbers go a long way toward dispelling the perception of a lack of overall involvement by superintendents because of stagnant-at-best participation rates in industry-supported environmental programs and award competitions.
“Most superintendents are doers, but they’re not much for paperwork, they’re low-key, they don’t seek the spotlight,” Throssell says regarding the spontaneous stewardship. “But they’ve done all sorts of wonderful things — in some cases, some pretty incredible things — and they’re happy to do it because it’s right for their community, right for the golf course and right for the environment.”
Off and running
A major part of the environmental profile project at this point is getting the word out on the results of the first survey, which were published on the Web site of the scientific journal Applied Turfgrass Science (www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/ats/) in early November. Communications efforts are now under way to bring the results to the overall golf industry and to the public at-large.
“This is all good, but it’s not the finish line — far from it. We’ve got to continue our momentum and seek greater participation in future surveys,” Lyman says, pointing out that the results of the water-use and nutrient-use phases will be released and published soon and the most respondent-intensive of them all, the fourth survey on pesticide use, begins in January. The need for strong participation there, he emphasizes, is crucial.
Throssell adds that follow-up surveys for each phase will be done every five years on a staggered basis to record the industry’s progress over time. Also, fifth and possibly sixth phases are on the horizon, dealing in some way with such general topics as environmental practices, wildlife and habitat, energy use and waste management.
“(This project) is a great tool for the golf industry,” Throssell says. “I hope 30 years from now this is still going on, and people will look back and say, ‘That was a really good thing they started back then.’ I’d like people to think of this as a long-haul effort, and a continuing effort, to build this data set so people can see the changes and the progress.”
All involved agree that the property profile survey has the project off to an encouraging start. There is much to digest and much to do.
“This is a strong data set. This process will begin to take the black cloud of anxiety off environmental issues and allow us to address them forthright,” Lyman says. “GCSAA is really in a powerful position. Now we can look at this data and determine how we can get the farthest the fastest ... the best areas for our efforts.”
Maintained turf acreage
 |
• An average 18-hole course comprises 150 acres, including 100 acres of maintained turf. Of that, the most intensely maintained areas, tees and greens, make up just 7 percent, or barely 7 acres on average, of the total. Other maintained averages include 52 acres of rough, 29.5 acres of fairways, 7.5 acres of driving range/practice areas, 3 acres of clubhouse grounds and 1.5 acres of turf nurseries.
 |
• Bermudagrass (485,892 acres) and Kentucky bluegrass (338,233 acres) dominate the individual grass species across the American golf course scene. Other leading species are perennial ryegrass, 162,891 acres; Poa annua, 159,740 acres; creeping bentgrass, 140,757 acres; tall fescue, 66,549 acres; fine fescue, 48,007 acres; zoysiagrass, 16,293 acres; and seashore paspalum, 7,519 acres.
Non-turf landscapes and water areas
• On the average golf course property, nearly a third of the area is made up of non-turf landscapes (24 acres), water features (11 acres), buildings (6 acres), bunkers (4.5 acres) and parking lots (4.5 acres).
• Non-turf landscapes, which comprise 358,278 acres nationwide, include forests/woodlands, native grasslands, shrublands, deserts, riparian areas, buffer strips, garden/landscape areas and other unmowed vegetation.
• Typical golf course property water features include 113,332 acres of ponds and lakes, 19,956 acres of wetlands, 16,244 acres of streams/rivers, 9,103 acres of drainage waterways and 2,548 acres of irrigation canals.
• Survey participants were asked to identify changes made to non-turf landscapes on their facilities over the last 10 years. Forty-four percent reported an average increase of 9.8 acres, while 49 percent said their acreage had stayed about the same and 6 percent reported an average reduction of 16 acres.
Environmental stewardship efforts
Superintendents were asked to indicate specific environmental stewardship practices, participation in voluntary environmental stewardship programs and environmental upgrades made to the golf course since 1996.
• Responses indicated that 29 percent of 18-hole U.S. golf facilities currently participate in a voluntary environmental stewardship program. The participation rate ranges from 53 percent in the Pacific region to 23 percent in the Southwest and transition regions. More respondents (24 percent) participate in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program than in any other environmental program; most of the other programs tend to be highly regionalized.
• The highest rate of program participants were golf properties that have more than nine holes, are private, have higher maintenance budgets and employ a GCSAA member superintendent.
• For the most part, the profile of 18-hole golf courses participating in environmental stewardship programs is similar to that of facilities not involved in programs. Key differences: Program participants have a lower percentage of maintained turf (63 percent of total property size) than non-participants (69 percent), and, since 1996, 56 percent of program participants increased the acreage of their non-turf areas, compared with just 40 percent of the non-participants.
Environmental improvements
• Almost all U.S. golf facilities (96 percent) reported making at least one environmental improvement since 1996, and 57 percent have made five improvements. Program participants reported an average of 7.1 improvements in the 10-year period, compared with 4.7 improvements by non-participants.
• The top five environmental improvements most often made were irrigation system upgrades, 65 percent; chemical storage, 53 percent; native plantings, 51 percent; wildlife habitat, 47 percent; and erosion control, 42 percent. Among program participants, the top improvements were wildlife habitat, 76 percent; irrigation system, 71 percent; and native plantings, 67 percent.
— T.O.
RECENT issues
 |
 |
November |
October |