Environmentalists argue that the land of golf courses is not only a waste of space, but it also harbors harmful impacts on the land and the environment, such as the use of pesticides. This negative impact occurs by using large amounts of water and destroying the habitats of wildlife species. There are many ways in which golf harms the environment, right from the start. To develop a golf course, for example, large amounts of clearing are required, often resulting in deforestation.
According to the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law, it's relatively common for developers to destroy entire ecosystems in the process. And, in the process of clearing all this land, heavy machinery emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases. Nearby waterways may also be affected. Golf requires more land per player than any other sport.
Environmentalists say developers destroy natural habitats to build courses, eliminating native species and contributing to soil erosion and sediment runoff to nearby bodies of water. In Canada, many pesticides that are banned for cosmetic use on properties are still used on golf courses, which are exempt from regulations. Detached houses that require more energy to warm up and cool down, surrounded by lush gardens adjacent to golf courses, which require enormous amounts of water during 100-degree summers, are not natural in the desert. Just as developers destroy the real forest in the northeast to replace it with an imitation forest on a golf course and the suburbs that accompany it (community in the language of developers), in the southwest the rules of a much more arid climate prevail.
Although golf has already had an enormous impact on the environment since its introduction to American culture in the 18th century, there is still hope for a more environmentally friendly iteration. In fact, the environmental impact of golf courses is truly scandalous, from construction to maintenance and beyond. There are an estimated 30,000 golf courses around the world that are home to 16 million golfers who love the game. Here in North America, Audubon International offers a cooperative sanctuary program for golf courses.
However, Audubon International, an organization committed to establishing public goods (such as golf courses) that are sustainable and respectful of wildlife, points out that chemicals, water and the enormous amount of land used to maintain golf courses are a danger to the environment itself environment in which sports exist. Also in Utah, according to CNN, the 30 golf courses in Salt Lake County consume about 9 million gallons of water a day in arid Utah. In a study of 10 golf courses in North Carolina, researchers were surprised to discover that golf courses provided a wonderful environment for stream salamanders, an amphibian that they say played an important ecological role in the area's food chain. Although the numbers were later called into question, the story sparked an intense debate about golf and land use problems.
And Tourism Concern (a British organization that works with communities in destination countries to reduce social and environmental problems related to tourism) estimates that an average golf course in a tropical country like Thailand needs 1500 kg of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides per year and uses as much Water like 60,000 rural villagers. In recent years, golf tourism has increased in popularity and the number of golf courses has grown rapidly. However, pointing out variations in land and population is an efficient method for describing how little golf courses are used in proportion to the space they occupy, especially considering that these spaces are formed through deforestation and the introduction of chemicals into natural environments. As the golf world prepares for the final stages of the United States Open this weekend, and the rest of the world yawns, it's worth pausing to consider how pernicious golf really is.
Golf courses and the corresponding tourist and retirement communities demonstrate a preference for carefully crafted imitations of nature and small-town life to reality, and impose landscape and architectural standards more appropriate to the climate of the northeastern United States than to the solar belt, where Development is booming. . .
