I recall a recent thread which showed that over the 2020/1 winter period bunker related work comprised approx 30% of the greenstaffs time at North Berwick.
Ok, that was a winter only period figure and likely included project time, but I’d like to know year-on-year annual time spent on bunkers and opened-up sandy areas at somewhere like Royal Porthcawl (or another course that has adopted a similar approach) both now and before their bunker/sandy area alterations were made.
Such data might make interesting analysis as upkeep and maintenance take time and costs money and I’m far from convinced how much those in charge at member run clubs realise this.
Atb
I am told these waste areas help increase biodiversity. To some degree, so long as the work is being marketed as such, this is part of being a good steward of the land. The reputation of golf is such that it needs positive pr. So long as its affordable, its good that some visitor money is ploughed back into the land as a separate entity to the course. There are various agencies which help fund this sort of work. Burnham is funded now again to remove buckthorn etc and re-establish marram covered dunes.
Ciao
I’m still not 100% sold that removing the pioneering grasses and vegetation to expose open sand increases biodiversity. It certainly decreases aspects. I do know however that this approach is being promoted by the STRI so I could be talking out of turn.
Regardless, the open sand on many of these courses is being introduced as much as an aesthetic and because that is one of the drivers, the locations are not always the natural ones where you would expect to see blowouts etc. I remain unconvinced, either by the premise or by the execution. They are far too “obvious” and often incongruous with the rest of the landscape.
But If this is genuinely creating positive PR outside the golf industry then great. All I see is the PR within.