For example, I think golf, properly managed, is an excellent steward of sensitive ecosystems such as sand dunes, because the interests of the course and of the ecosystem are very similar.
Adam-My takeaway from this statement is that the common interest is to leave the sand dunes undisturbed while integrating them into the design. Do I have this correct? Thank you.
Every site is different, but sand dunes require management if they are to stay in the best condition. They can very easily be overrun with weed species and the like, and if they are used for golf, it is in the interests of the course to keep them as pristine as possible.
Machrihanish Dunes is a very good example of this. The site was highly protected, and the course was only permitted because the developers signed up for an incredibly rigorous set of constraints that basically amounted to no movement of earth -- at all -- except for greens and tees. If turf was lifted from a dune, it had to be relaid facing the same direction. And the course was overseen by an inspector appointed by Scottish Natural Heritage, who had to approve
everything, including otherwise normal greenkeeping type stuff.
The relationship between the course staff and the SNH inspector was, at first, rather confrontational. But over time, SNH came to realise that the golf course was not going to destroy the ecosystem of the dunes, and if anything enhanced it, and the relationship became much more congenial, to the extent that, now, there is a proposal to build a second course there, although only a few holes of it would be inside the Site of Special Scientific Interest -- if it happens, it will mostly be inland, on farmland.
Contrast this with Trump Aberdeen where, because the Scottish government was seduced by the prospect of huge investment in the area, permission was granted to grass over a huge mobile (ie exposed sand) dune system. The SSSI status of the site has now been removed, because the grassing of the dunes destroyed the ecosystem for which they were prized.
Or think of the heathland courses of southern England. Two hundred years ago, huge swathes of Surrey and neighbouring counties were covered in lowland heath. But much of it was destroyed as the area developed economically, and now most of the heath that remains is little islands, a lot of which is in the care of golf courses. And much of that, over the past century, has been denatured, because heath, if not grazed, reverts to low quality woodland fairly quickly (heath is a manmade landscape, created thousands of years ago when primitive farmers cleared the native forests for their crops and flocks).
Now, as we can see at places like Addington or Woking, heath is trendy again in golf, and the clubs are trying to regenerate it as best they can, cutting down the woodlands that have colonised the heaths, and encouraging the heather to regrow. Over time, this will have significant positive consequences for the biodiversity of those sites. But it will need constant management, with greenkeeper removing the sapling trees that will inevitably self-seed -- in other words, they will have to fulfil the role that was previously undertaken by sheep and deer. And the courses will have to work hard to keep the soil fertility down, ensuring that irrigation and fertiliser do not allow the heather to be outcompeted by other, less desirable species. But this too is in their interests: the fine-bladed fescues and bents that are the best surface for traditional running golf also require low fertility if they are not to be smothered by weed grasses.
In other words, golf can be an excellent steward of sensitive ecosystems. But it can also wreck them.