I'm not sure the vast majority of these exposed areas are being created for the sake of it. As has been mentioned, they are being used as a source of sand and native plant material (to patch back up newly created landforms). Given how constrained many of our links courses are, it's inevitable that these source areas are close to play, and inevitable that they are positioned where they are less likely to influence play. To the foreground of holes or way off to the flanks, in areas that might otherwise have been unplayable...that's not always a bad thing.
So, the more pertinent question should be: are the projects that require the generation of sand worthwhile, and actually really improving the golf!?
In the case of Hillside, the area between the first and eighteenth was rather non-discript - open, with a roadway passing through it. I tend to like such areas for variety in the landscape. Not to mention, a strong dislike for flanking mounds that fail to tie into the fairway contours in at least one or two places. I'd think of the work as superfluous, but I bet that you'd be hard pressed to find too many of their members that agree...and that's who the work is really for.
The pictured work is very fresh and very clean. Not to mention, very similar in shaping to the work seen elsewhere in the Isles. But, you've got to give it a few years to weather-in/evolve before you can pass true judgement on the aesthetics.
The ecological narrative is merely that as far as I can see. The ideal convincer to push for the design decisions that are being proposed. Not many architects could resist that.