Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/62071
Nature - Continued From Page 14 potentially harmful chemicals. But based on a survey in late 2010, Audubon International reported that, among other things, 90 percent of its members mitigated risks, 70 percent reduced their pesticide use, and 50 percent reduced their irrigated acreage. By how much, on average, each of these things was reduced wasn t mentioned. The Geo program, on the other hand, is only 18 months old, so there are few concrete results. That s clearly on the minds of its leaders. As we proceed to publish more and more evidence of verified sustainable golf achievement around the world, says Benjamin Warren, communications director of the GEO, quantifiable examples of industry leadership will become straightforward to identify, promote and trust. Perhaps the question of whether or not these programs are beneficial can best be summarized this way: Both initiatives are positive in that they heighten awareness about golf s role in and on the environment. However, as Chad Ritterbush, executive director of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, is quick to point out, they re only certification programs, not panaceas. It s up to the golf course architect, builder, superintendent, owner and others to make use of the tools provided, he says. These programs can be a positive, but that doesnt mean that in every case they have bettered the environment. It s ultimately how they re used. found ACSP courses could charge a 34 percent premium for green fees based on people s willingness to pay for environmentally certified good. And in a 2005 report published in the Journal of Sports Economics titled The Demand for Environmental Quality: An Application of Hedonic Pricing in Golf," researchers identified a substantial price premium for environmentally certified Audubon International golf courses. However, the authors also concluded that the increase in marginal benefits of certification is approximately equal to the increase in marginal costs. Perhaps times have changed because more recent evidence suggests that most golf courses can achieve certification with little or no capital investment whatsoever. There are facilities that choose to invest in, say, an $80,000 wash water recycling system to more quickly achieve certification but that s the exception, not the rule. In fact, what s more common now is for golf courses to see an immediate cost reduction. Indeed, as a starting point, we d like them (course operators) to kick off with the multitude of things they can do to save money, Warren says. We don t want people to invest heavily in things that don t benefit the bottom line of their business. However, the exact amount of those reductions, with either program, remains in question. Similarly, a return on investment for pursuing or achieving certification is tough to pin down. Some empirical evidence suggests that environmentally certified courses can command higher green fees — if they ve done a good job publicizing their efforts to consumers. For example, an undergraduate economics researcher named Alec Watson published a study in 1998 that I wish I could tell you, says Mike Morris, superintendent at Crystal Downs Country Club in Frankfort, Michigan, whose course was certified by AI in 2003. Probably the best way to estimate this is to look at how much more it would take to mow, say, an extra 15 acres each week, to add one or two fungicide or insecticide sprays, to increase your fertility by 1 pound N/m across the property, or to remediate an uncontained pesticide or fuel spill. Even the leader of the GEO has a tough time pinpointing the bottom-line impact of his program. There are no averages, there are no formulae for all clubs, there are no standards that can be meaningfully set, says Jonathan Smith, chief executive of the GEO. But, we can incentivize and empower decision makers to get engaged, and find business benefits all the way along — a saving here, free publicity there, a careful investment here, a shift of staff priority there — all leading to financially measurable ways of evolving business practices in a way that improves overall profitability. Some might find that type of calculation tough to quantify, but it s no less real in terms of its possible bottom-line impact. There s a potential savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars, says Scott Morrison of Out On a Limb, a Vancouver, British Columbia-based consultancy that specializes in shepherding golf courses through the certification process. If you really look at these programs, they re about helping you identify areas of risk and inefficiency — exposures that could get you fined and places where you re spending money but you don t need to. And speaking of not spending money, Morrison, who has provided ACSP certification guidance to more than 50 golf courses in Canada and conducted the first North American verification for GEO, says there are dozens of grants and rebate programs that golf courses can use to offset environmental improvement costs by as much as 95 percent. Unfortunately, in this ROI equation as it stands now, golf courses that do the least might recoup the most, or at least recoup something faster. Today, consumers may simply lump all course together that have been certified by one organization or another. In the long run, however, a true culture of environmental stewardship will be something that must pervade the entire operation. It s the cumulative effect of what golfers see on the course, what they hear when the golf staff doesn t know they re listening. Yes, certain courses may get by for a while doing the minimum, but true environmentalism is quickly becoming more important to more people, golfers included. It s in this sense that consumers may ultimately be the ones holding golf courses to the highest environmental standard of all. Craig Better is the New Jersey-based writer and managing editor of www.GolfVactionInsider.com. This article was re-printed with his permission. Twenty years ago, Ron Dodson stood to lose the legal right to use the name Audubon International, but a judge ruled that the public wouldn t confuse it with the 106-year-old, bird friendly National Audubon Society (which happened to be his previous employer). Well, what s good for the Chinese swan goose is good for the gander. Not only did an organization launch in 2007 called Audubon Lifestyles, but last year it introduced its Sustainable Golf Facility Program, a certification program which normally might look like a shot directly across the bow of Dodson s Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for golf courses. That would no doubt be the case if not for the fact that Dodson s son Eric, who previously worked for his dad for 20 years at Audubon International, was the creator of Audubon Lifestyles. It s certainly a curious situation. When asked about his relationship with Audubon Lifestyles, Ron Dodson made very clear that, other than being the father of the organization s founder, he has no relationship with Audubon Lifestyles. Yet, he is one of 19 members of something called the International Sustainability Council, which operates in partnership with Audubon Lifestyles. What s more, one of his consulting companies calls itself a proud member of Audubon Lifestyles, and another says it is affiliated with Audubon Lifestyles. (Read the full interview with Ron Dodson at www.golfbusiness.com). Meanwhile, the younger Dodson says on his website that the intent of Audubon Lifestyles is to fill a void in many sustainability programs that only focus on the environment. He seeks to do that by creating something to balance the environment, the economic and the social attributes required to be truly sustainable. Based on that description, Audubon Lifestyles seems to be more of a direct challenge to the Golf Environment Organization (GEO), the Scotland-based group that unveiled its golf sustainability certification program in 2009. According to Benjamin Warren, communications director of the GEO, the organization s programs are designed to cover the full spectrum of sustainability opportunities: ecological, resource consumption, supply chain management and social. Similar outlines, to be sure, but Audubon Lifestyles seems comfortable being similar, especially to the aforementioned National Audubon Society. The two organizations are branded with very similar bird icons and typefaces. Surely, just a coincidence — Craig Better