Journal of Land Use Science

ISSN: 1747-423X (Print) 1747-4248 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tlus20

Integrating biodiversity considerations into urban

golf courses: managers’ perceptions and woody
plant diversity in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

M. Jarrett & C. M. Shackleton

To cite this article: M. Jarrett & C. M. Shackleton (2017) Integrating biodiversity considerations
into urban golf courses: managers’ perceptions and woody plant diversity in the Eastern Cape,
South Africa, Journal of Land Use Science, 12:4, 292-311, DOI: 10.1080/1747423X.2017.1325525

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2017.1325525

Accepted author version posted online: 29

Apr 2017.
Published online: 17 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 77

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tlus20

Download by: [199.133.222.6] Date: 27 September 2017, At: 12:22

 JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE, 2017
VOL. 12, NO. 4, 292–311
https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2017.1325525

ARTICLE

Integrating biodiversity considerations into urban golf courses:

managers’ perceptions and woody plant diversity in the Eastern
Cape, South Africa
M. Jarrett and C. M. Shackleton
Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Rapid rates of urbanisation affect biodiversity through habitat fragmen- Received 14 February 2017
tation and loss. Because urban golf courses are large green spaces, they Accepted 25 April 2017
potentially harbour much biodiversity if managed for such. The area of KEYWORDS
untransformed land of golf courses in the Eastern Cape (South Africa) Biodiversity; greenkeeper;
was determined using Geographic Information System (GIS), the woody
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

green space; management;

plant composition of a subsample was determined by field sampling and out of play; urbanisation
the greenkeepers were interviewed. There was a significant relationship
between climate and woody cover, species richness and percentage
native plants but not species diversity. There was no relationship
between management scores and species richness, diversity and percen-
tage native. Significant relationships were evident between woody plant
species richness and course income, number of grounds staff, number of
club members and greenkeepers’ years of experience. These results
suggest a complex suite of factors that play a role in the woody plant
composition of urban golf courses and their contribution to urban
biodiversity.

1. Introduction
Urbanisation poses many challenges for the natural environment and biodiversity, mostly through
land use change, habitat fragmentation and reconfiguration, and pollution of land, water and air
(Jeon, Olofsson, & Woodcock, 2014; Scolozzi & Geneletti, 2012; Tzoulas et al., 2007). Habitat
fragmentation in urban areas is often viewed as causing declines in species richness, abundance
and overall biodiversity of urban areas; much of this is due to the loss of natural vegetation
(McKinney, 2002; Van Der Veken, Verheyen, & Hermy, 2004). Yet, there is increasing evidence that
many towns and cities harbour remarkable species richness, and that with appropriate conscious-
ness, policies and actions, the diversity and abundance of species in urban areas can be improved
(Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2011), including for endemic species (Hodgkison, Warnken, & Hero,
2007a). Thus, new perspectives are emerging regarding the possibility of ecosystem service gen-
eration from urban green infrastructure, and that land sharing as opposed to sparing (Grau,
Kuemmerle, & Macchi, 2013) is possible for a range of urban land uses. An important strategy to
achieve this goal is the provision of sufficient and networked urban green spaces (Alvey, 2006).
The amount, nature and configuration of urban green spaces vary between urban areas and
countries (Dobbs, Nitschke, & Kendal, 2014). However, it is a common lament that there is usually
insufficient green space for human needs and the average size is too small to foster sufficient

CONTACT C. M. Shackleton c.shackleton@ru.ac.za Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University,

Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE 293

biodiversity (e.g. Hepcan, 2013). Yet, most of this commentary relates to public urban green spaces,
and the contribution of private urban green spaces, that is, gardens, has been overlooked. This is
despite the bulk of urban green space being under private tenure (González-García & Gomez-Sal,
2008; Shackleton et al., 2017) and often harbouring high levels of biodiversity (Goddard, Dougill, &
Benton, 2010; Loram, Tratalos, Warren, & Gaston, 2007), both native and non-native species.
Nonetheless, most private gardens are relatively small and in many regions are enclosed, which
limits the movement of species and hence the abundance and types of species supported
(Goddard et al., 2010). Certain species, such as birds and small mammals, may also be at risk
from the depredations of domestic pets (Baker, Molony, Stone, Cuthill, & Harris, 2008).
In contrast, most urban golf courses do not suffer from these drawbacks. First, they are large,
typically over 50 ha (Terman, 1997), and so can potentially harbour species and support ecosystem
processes at a larger scale. Second, they rarely suffer the same level of negative impacts from
domestic pets. Third, because they exist to serve paying members, they generally have far higher
financial and human resources to manage the green space than do most public green spaces.
Fourth, most golf courses have a large proportion (30–70%) of their land under relatively minimal
management intervention; these are the out of play areas (Tanner & Gange, 2005). Fifth, their
attractiveness and use can be buffers to their transformation as urban areas densify and so they
may be relatively long-lived (Vaz, Caetano, & Nijkamp, 2011) and thereby harbour particularly large
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

trees. Last, although there are already between 25,000 and 31,500 (Hudson & Bird, 2009; Tanner &
Gange, 2005) golf courses globally, the number is increasing rapidly (Colding & Folke, 2009; Hudson
& Bird, 2009), which presents an opportunity to proactively influence their design, construction and
management to better promote biodiversity. The management of protected areas is expensive, and
many governments cannot afford to manage them effectively; therefore, within the urban bound-
aries, willing stewards have a potentially substantial role in the conservation of biodiversity
(Colding, Lundberg, & Folke, 2006). Golf course managers could become such stewards; all costs
would be at the expense of the golf courses, but they too would enjoy the benefits of a more
environmentally friendly course while increasing biodiversity and ecosystem service provision for
the greater urban area. Examples include the use of golf courses for recreation and exercise by
walkers and bird watchers, active introductions or management of a variety of wildlife species
(Terman, 1997), carbon sequestration and ameliorating the urban heat island effect, in other words,
ecosystem services bundles.
Given this combination of features, it is understandable that urban golf courses are receiving
increasing attention regarding their potential for land sharing to simultaneously provide high-value
recreational spaces for golfers and contribute to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services
in urban settings. Often viewed as sites of habitat and biodiversity loss when created (Jeon et al.,
2014), with strategic management it is possible for golf courses to attract more anthrophobic
species (species that are poorly adapted to human disturbance) and hence add to urban biodi-
versity conservation (Colding & Folke, 2009). This is not to ignore that some golf courses may also
engage in actions that have environmentally negative impacts, such as widespread use of chemi-
cals, high water use and introduction of alien species (Wheeler & Nauright, 2006). Nonetheless,
from a perspective of maintaining and promoting biodiversity in urban settings they have con-
siderable potential. For example, Tanner and Gange (2005) surveyed nine golf courses in Surry (UK)
and reported higher abundance and richness of birds, bees, beetles and trees than neighbouring
farmlands; there was no difference in the diversity of herbaceous plant species. Such differences
are likely to be even starker in urban areas. Hodgkison et al. (2007a) revealed the value of golf
courses in providing habitat to threatened species in Queensland, Australia.
To date, all but one case study regarding the biodiversity of urban golf courses have been
situated in developed world contexts, mostly North America, Europe and Australia. The meta-
analysis review by Colding and Folke (2009) identified only one case study from a developing
country. Whether or not such a macro-level differentiation will result in different dynamics
around urban golf courses and their ability to foster biodiversity is currently unknown, but
 294 M. JARRETT AND C. M. SHACKLETON

merits consideration. On the surface there are a number of differences between developed and
developing world contexts that influence urban greening (Shackleton, 2012), some of which are
likely to be applicable to golf courses, including higher biodiversity, demand for provisioning
services (such as firewood, traditional medicines and fruits) from urban green areas, lower
information and knowledge about the importance of urban biodiversity, limited financial
resources to ameliorate the effects of harsh climates and the potential for damage by urban
livestock (Shackleton, 2012). Thus, it is necessary that consideration of the contributions of golf
courses to urban biodiversity and ecosystem services also be examined in developing world
contexts.
At a more localised scale, two additional key factors are likely to have considerable influence
on the biodiversity of golf courses. These are the policy framework of the golf club and the
management actions on the course (Hammond & Hudson, 2007). The position that intersects
these two is the role of the greenkeeper or grounds manager. Thus, the knowledge and
attitude of the greenkeeper about biodiversity can potentially promote or constrain the
biodiversity outcomes with respect to species richness, diversity, structure and supportive
ecological processes. For example, Hodgkison, Hero, and Warnken (2007b) and Burgin and
Wotherspoon (2009) showed how, in Australia, appropriate management could promote
biodiversity without constraining the needs of the golf players, through activities such as
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

amphibian-friendly fringes around water features, leaving dead wood in situ and increasing
the mowing height in the rough area. Yet, few of the studies on golf course biodiversity have
considered the greenkeepers’ interest and actions pertaining to biodiversity. Thus, what is the
relative contribution of management actions and perceptions to the biodiversity status of
urban golf courses? The exception is the work of Hammond and Hudson (2007), who showed
that the majority of golf course managers surveyed in the UK agreed that golf courses were
important areas for wildlife and 43% had sections about wildlife in the management plan for
their course.
Within the context mentioned earlier, we sought to ascertain the potential contribution of urban
golf courses in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa, to urban biodiversity conservation. The
corresponding objectives were to (1) determine the size and cover of urban golf courses in the
province, (2) assess their woody plant diversity, (3) determine greenkeepers’ perceptions of
biodiversity conservation and management on golf courses and (4) investigate links between
management perceptions, actions and woody plant structure and diversity.

2. Study area
This study took place in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, home to approximately 6.5 million
people, and increasing at approximately 0.4% per year over the last decade. Just over one-third
(36.6%) are urban dwellers (StatsSA (Statistics South Africa), 2011). The unemployment rate in
2011 was 37.5% (StatsSA (Statistics South Africa), 2011). The Eastern Cape includes seven out of
the nine biomes of South Africa with at least 6164 different plant species, of which 316 are
threatened (CSIR, 2004). The study sites fall within the forest, Albany thicket, Nama karoo and
grassland biomes.
The first phase of the study consisted of a GIS analysis of 43 urban golf courses in the Eastern
Cape province. The second phase involved using a subsample of 12 urban golf courses for
vegetation surveys. The criteria for selection of the subsample were that they be situated within
two broad belts from the coast inland (Figure 1), so to include a range of bioclimatic settings in
the study. The climatic conditions vary with increasing distance from the ocean, with the coastal
areas experiencing mild, temperate conditions, whereas the inland areas experience harsher
conditions (hotter and drier, but with lower winter temperatures) and more seasonal growing
conditions. The altitude, size, mean annual rainfall and mean high and low temperatures for each
site are included in Table 1.
 JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE 295
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

Figure 1. Location of study sites along two belts, each from inland to coast.

Table 1. Attributes of the 12 sites for woody plant determination (SA Explorer, 2016; World Weather Online, 2016).
Golf course location Altitude (m) Size (ha) Mean rainfall/annum (mm) Mean high and low temperatures (°C)
Port Alfred 21 62.0 485 23.8; 12.6
East London 47 82.6 593 24.8; 14.3
Alexandria 213 26.6 529 23.1; 12.3
Alicedale 283 55.2 334 24.0; 7.8
King William’s Town 382 63.5 502 23.0; 11.4
Adelaide 592 29.0 369 22.8; 9.9
Bedford 730 24.8 390 23.3; 9.3
Stutterheim 844 33.5 598 21.2; 10.8
Cradock 886 31.4 248 28.2; 10.1
Queenstown 1090 99.2 399 23.3; 9.3
Cathcart 1198 33.2 454 21.2; 10.8
Dordrecht 1609 33.4 466 23.4; 6.8

3. Methodology
This study made use of both quantitative and qualitative data collected from fieldwork as well as
interviews with the greenkeepers. Prior to work in the field, a GIS analysis was done on 43 Eastern
Cape urban golf courses identified using online inventories and snowball sampling. This sample is
likely to include more than 90% of urban golf courses in the province. A subsample of 12 of these
courses was chosen for further investigation along the two broad belts depicted in Figure 1.
Fieldwork consisted of assessing the percentage cover of each woody species within predeter-
mined random plots so that woody plant species diversity could be calculated. Interviews were
conducted with the greenkeepers at the 12 courses to determine their perceptions of biodiversity
conservation on urban golf courses.

3.1. Data collection

The ground cover of all 43 Eastern Cape urban golf courses was assessed using aerial photographs
and ArcGIS. Polygons were created around the area of each of the golf course and 50 m × 50 m
grids were created within each polygon. Forty per cent of the blocks were randomly selected and
 296 M. JARRETT AND C. M. SHACKLETON

analysed for six ground cover classes: rough (area outside of greens and fairways), woody vegeta-
tion, greens (greens and fairways), water (water features on the course), infrastructure and cement/
roads. The size of all 43 golf courses was determined as well as the mean percentage cover of the
ground cover classes.
Field data collection was done at a subsample of 12 golf courses to assess the woody plant
species cover of 10 plots per golf course. Most golf courses are shaped in a way that they have
woody vegetation in the rough surrounding the fairways and greens, but they may also have thin
strips of woody vegetation between fairways. Therefore, 7 out of the 10 plots were randomly
placed in the rough and the remaining 3 were randomly placed between fairways. Random points
were generated by Google Earth Pro. The plots in the rough were 10 m × 10 m and the plots
between the fairways were 5 m × 100 m. The reason for the plots differing in size was that the
wooded areas between the fairways tend to be long and relatively narrow (often a single row of
trees). In each plot, each woody plant was identified (in the field if known or a voucher specimen
was collected for identification) and the total aerial cover was visually estimated for each woody
species as a percentage of the total plot area, as was the total cover across all woody plant species.
Woody plant species richness (count of species), percentage cover of each species, mean percen-
tage cover for rough and fairway plots, species diversity for rough and fairway plots and percen-
tage of native woody plants were determined for each golf course. Species diversity was calculated
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

using Simpson’s Diversity Index (1–D) where D = ∑ (n/N)2 with n = cover of woody species x and
N = total cover of all woody species (Simpson, 1949).
Direct interviews were conducted with the head greenkeepers of each of the 12 golf courses.
Interviews consisted of both open- and closed-ended questions. The line of inquiry was aimed
towards how greenkeepers perceive the role of urban golf courses in biodiversity conservation.
Hence topics included greenkeepers’ understanding of biodiversity, opinions on biodiversity con-
servation on urban golf courses, perceived importance of high plant diversity, biodiversity con-
servation targets/objectives, access to biodiversity management information, management
practices, training, education and experience (Appendix 1). Interviews were very conversational
ranging between 1 and 3 h, with some greenkeepers taking the researchers on a tour around parts
of the golf course to point out certain features, illustrate some of their answers or ask questions of
the researchers. The list of possible biodiversity friendly practices was from Hammond and Hudson
(2007). Rating scores were (such as the influence of club members on course management) self-
ratings by the respondents. For those greenkeepers who stated that they had limited under-
standing of the term biodiversity, we explained it as the number of different species, their relative
abundance in a place (such as a golf course) and the interactions between them that support the
variety of life. All interviews were transcribed, and permission to use responses was given by
interviewees.

3.2. Data analysis

All analyses were done using Statistica 13. Simple linear regressions were done to determine
whether there were significant relationships between altitude and species richness, species diver-
sity, percentage ground cover and percentage of native vegetation. Altitude was used as a
quantitative proxy for climate because climates at low-altitude sites near the coast are warmer,
moister, frost-free, with a longer growing season and overall more tropical than the inland, higher
altitude sites, with a continuum between the opposite ends.
Interview data included both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were in the
form of management scores, which were determined from a list of management practices for
which interviewees had to rank the frequency at which they applied each practice (Table 2). Two
scoring systems were used, an overall management score and a native species management score.
The overall management score used the seven management practices in Table 2 to obtain a score
out of 28 for each course based on the ranking given by greenkeepers. The native-friendly
 JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE 297

Table 2. Management practices that are regarded to promote woody plant biodiversity (Hammond & Hudson, 2007).
Greenkeepers were asked to rank the degree to which each is implemented on their golf course.
Practices Rank each practice on scale of 1 to 4:
Leave large natural wooded areas undisturbed 1 = never
Maintain undergrowth and leaf litter in wooded areas 2 = seldom
Designate ‘no mow areas’ in out-of-play areas 3 = often
Leave old/dead trees in situ 4 = always
Removal/reduction of non-native tree species
Alien invasive species control
Use native plants when planting

management score used only the last three management practices from Table 2 to get a score out
of 12. Simple linear regressions were run to determine whether there were significant relationships
between management scores, derived from a list of management practices said to promote
biodiversity, and species richness, percentage native woody plants and species diversity. Multiple
regression analyses were also done where the dependent variables were species richness, species
diversity, percentage native woody plants and mean percentage cover, and the predictor variables
were overall management score, native-friendly management score, annual fees paid by golf club
members, number of golf club members, number of grounds staff and years of experience in green
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

keeping.

4. Results
4.1. Vegetative cover of Eastern Cape urban golf courses
The mean and median size of 43 Eastern Cape urban golf courses were 34.0 ± 25.53 ha and 25.0 ha,
respectively. The total area of all golf courses combined was 1461 ha. Six ground cover classes were
observed: greens, rough, woody, infrastructure, water and cement/road with most (52%) being under
rough and greens (34%) (Figure 2). The mean percentage cover of rough and woody classes
combined contributed 66.6% of the vegetation cover. Therefore, assuming that rough and woody
ground cover classes offer high potential for biodiversity on golf courses, there is a large proportion
of Eastern Cape urban golf courses that could potentially be managed for biodiversity conservation.

Figure 2. Mean proportions (±SD) of six different ground cover classes on 43 Eastern Cape golf courses representative of 40%
of the total size.
 298 M. JARRETT AND C. M. SHACKLETON

Table 3. Woody plant diversity status of the 12 golf courses (FW = plots between fairways; Plot = plots in the rough;
D = Simpson’s Diversity Index (1-D).
Golf course Altitude (m) Species richness Mean FW cover (%) Mean plot cover (%) FW D Plot D Native (%)
Port Alfred 21 25 133.0 123.4 0.877 0.822 80
East London 47 21 64.3 103.4 0.807 0.741 76
Alexandria 213 28 83.3 145.5 0.703 0.877 71
Alicedale 283 14 67.3 80.3 0.651 0.704 86
King William’s Town 382 22 49.5 63.4 0.656 0.871 64
Adelaide 592 7 74.0 69.2 0.553 0.629 43
Bedford 730 21 64.7 83.1 0.489 0.892 62
Stutterheim 844 13 54.7 49.4 0.568 0.504 23
Cradock 886 15 61.0 69.7 0.777 0.834 47
Queenstown 1090 11 36.0 46.1 0.553 0.824 18
Cathcart 1198 7 74.0 63.0 0.597 0.591 0
Dordrecht 1609 8 35.7 58.2 0.741 0.590 25

4.2. Woody plant diversity

Woody plant species richness ranged between 8 and 28 and the percentage of native woody plants
ranged from 0% to 86% (Table 3). Between the 12 golf courses, 104 woody plant species were
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

recorded; 61 were native to South Africa and 43 were non-native, of which some were declared
invasive alien species (Table 4). It was noted that all courses had at least one declared invasive
woody plant species (some had as many as six), which by South African legislation should be
removed (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2014).
Significant negative relationships were found between altitude and woody plant species rich-
ness (R2 = 0.565, p = 0.005), percentage of native woody plants (r2 = 0.747, p = 0.0001) and mean
percentage cover for both fairway plots (r2 = 0.392, p = 0.029) and rough plots (r2 = 0.520,
p = 0.008). There were no significant relationships between altitude and fairway plot species
diversity (r2 = 0.140, p = 0.230) or rough plot species diversity (r2 = 0.205, p = 0.140) (Figure 3).
Altitude was used as a quantitative proxy for climate; therefore, climate had an effect on species
richness, percentage of native plants and percentage cover of woody plants, but not on species
diversity. Thus, drier and cooler inland sites had fewer species, most of which were non-native and
lower woody plant cover relative to coastal sites.

4.3. Greenkeepers’ perceptions of biodiversity conservation on urban golf courses

Half of the greenkeepers self-rated themselves as having none (33%) or little (17%) understanding
of the term ‘biodiversity’ and the other half had a moderate (17%) or good (33%) understanding.
Irrespective, all of the greenkeepers agreed with the statement ‘Urban golf courses can play a role
in biodiversity conservation’. A variety of reasons were provided for their agreement; some were
more general, for example, golf courses provided natural beauty, increased habitat leads to
increased biodiversity and that they were contained and well maintained areas that act as a
‘parkland in an urban area’. One comment was that golf courses could afford to maintain their
area therefore making them a more ‘economical’ way for biodiversity conservation; another
comment was that educated management of golf courses can build biodiversity.
The greenkeepers were asked to rank the importance of high plant diversity on golf courses;
59% believed it was important, 33% believed that it was of medium importance and 8%
thought it was not important. General reasons why those that found high diversity to be
important include the aesthetic value of nature, increased plant diversity could provide golfers
with extra challenges and that monoculture is not sustainable for ecosystem dependents (e.g.
birds and bees). Reasons for those that felt high plant diversity was of medium or low
importance include higher maintenance, water usage and increased obstructions which might
affect golfers’ ability to play.
 Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

Table 4. Woody plant species found at each golf course (indigenous species are in bold).
Species Port Alfred East London Alexan-dria Alice-dale King William’s Town Adelaide Bedford Stutter-heim Cradock Queens-town Cath-cart Dord-recht
Acacia dealbata x
Acacia longifolia x
Acacia mearnsii x x x
Acacia saligna x x
Allophylus natalensis x x
Azima tetracantha x
Brachychiton populneus x
Brachylaena discolor x x
Brachylaena elliptica x
Brachylaena transvaalensis x
Callistemon sp. x
Cassia sp. x
Cassuarina cunninghamania x x x x x
Carissa bispinosa x x x
Celtis africana x x x
Cestrum laevigatum x
Chrysanthemoides monilifera x
Clerodendrum glabrum x
Coddia rudis x x
Colpoon compressum x
Cordia caffra x
Corymbia ficifolia x
Cotoneaster frigidus x
Cotoneaster sp. x
Cupressus sp. x x
Cussonia spicata x
Diospyros dichrophylla x
Diospyros lycioides x
Dodonaea viscosa x
Dovyalis caffra x
Ehretia rigida x x
Ekebergia capensis x x
Elaeodendron croceum x
Erythrina caffra x
Erythrina lysistemon x
Eucalyptus baueriana x
Eucalyptus beyeri x x
JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE

Eucalyptus camaldulensis x
Eucalyptus cinerea x x
Eucalyptus gomphocephala x
299

(Continued )
 Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

Table 4. (Continued).
300

Species Port Alfred East London Alexan-dria Alice-dale King William’s Town Adelaide Bedford Stutter-heim Cradock Queens-town Cath-cart Dord-recht
Eucalyptus grandis x x x x x x x
Eucalyptus maculata x
Eucalyptus sideroxylon x
Euclea natalensis x x
Euclea racemosa x
Ficus natalensis x
Ficus sp. x x
Ficus sur x
Ficus thonningii x x
Fraxinus sp. x
Gleditsia triacanthos x
Grevillea robusta x x
Grewia occidentalis x x
Gymnosporia buxifolia x
M. JARRETT AND C. M. SHACKLETON

Gymnosporia heterophylla x x x x x
Gymnosporia polyacantha x
Harpephyllum caffrum x
Jacaranda mimmosifolia x
Lantana camara x x x x
Leonotis leonurus x
Ligustrum lucidum x
Lycium acutifolium x x
Lycium sp. x x x
Manilkara sp. x
Melia azedarach x x x
Mystroxylon aethiopicum x x
Nicotiana sp. x
Olea africana x x x x
Olea capensis x x
Pappea capensis x
Pinus radiata x x x x x x x x
Pittosporum viridiflorum x
Plumbago auriculata x x x
Podocarpus falcatus x
Populus canescens x
Quercus acutissima x
Quercus palustris x
Quercus sp. x x x
Quercus suber x
Rhamnus prinoides x x
(Continued )
 Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

Table 4. (Continued).
Species Port Alfred East London Alexan-dria Alice-dale King William’s Town Adelaide Bedford Stutter-heim Cradock Queens-town Cath-cart Dord-recht
Rhigozum obovatum x
Rhoicissus sp. x x
Rubus sp. x
Salix babylonica ‘Crispa’ x
Salix sp. x x
Salvia africana-lutea x
Schinus molle x x
Schotia latifolia x
Scutia myrtina x x x x
Searsia glauca x x
Searsia crenata x x x
Searsia incisa x x
Searsia laevigata x x x
Searsia lancea x x
Searsia pyroides x x x x
Searsia refracta x
Searsia sp. x x
Senagalia galpinii x
Solanum sp. x
Thuja occidentalis x
Ulmus pumila x x
Vachellia karoo x x x x x x x x
Withania somnifera x
Xanthoxylon capense x
JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE
301
 302 M. JARRETT AND C. M. SHACKLETON
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

Figure 3. Relationships between four variables: (a) species richness, (b) percentage of native trees, (c) mean percentage cover
of fairway and rough, (d) species diversity; and altitude. (FW = plots between fairways; Plot = plots in the rough; D = Simpson’s
Diversity Index).

The greenkeepers were also asked to rank the influence of the members of the golf club on the
vegetative composition of their course. More than half (58%) said that the member influence was
weak, 25% said it was of medium strength and 17% said that members had a strong influence. This
shows that woody plant vegetative composition of the golf courses was largely a product of the
management actions decided by the greenkeepers.

4.4. Biodiversity conservation targets/objectives

A total of 3 of the 12 golf courses had biodiversity conservation objectives/targets in place for their
courses. These objectives/targets all involved the removal of non-native vegetation and increasing
 JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE 303

the number of native trees on the golf course. One golf course in particular had specific policies
against planting non-native tree species, and their objectives included the removal of non-native
tree species while inter-planting with native tree species. When asked if they would like to see
more being done to promote biodiversity on their golf course, eight greenkeepers responded
positively. Their interests were mainly centred on including more vegetation that is native and
introducing wildlife to their courses, but these examples were followed by reasons why such
interests are difficult to realise. Challenges included lack of finances, limited availability of water
and the need for ‘more committed management’. Adelaide’s golf course was a good example of
how challenges prohibit management for biodiversity; there is little access to water for irrigation as
well as livestock grazing and browsing on the course inhibiting the survival and growth of newly
planted trees. The other four greenkeepers who responded negatively did so because they were
satisfied with the current biodiversity status of their golf courses.

4.5. Training and accessibility of information on biodiversity management

One-third of the greenkeepers had received formal training in green keeping in the form of
Technicon education on turf grass management or short courses on topics such as pesticide/
fungicide use. It is noteworthy that none of the formal training included biodiversity teachings. The
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

other two-thirds had not received any formal training; their knowledge was in the form of knowl-
edge and experience from their predecessors, self-taught knowledge and farming knowledge.
Opinions on the accessibility of information on good biodiversity management practices for golf
courses were almost equally split, seven thought that such information was easily accessible and
five thought that it was not. All greenkeepers admitted that such information was available to
anyone who specifically sought it out. One greenkeeper commented that small town golf courses
seldom consider biodiversity in greenkeeping. Another view was that of the available information
very little is in relation to managing golf courses for biodiversity conservation but instead its focus
is more on management of the greens with lessons mostly based on golf courses in the US or
Europe. The most common ways in which the greenkeepers from all 12 courses obtained manage-
ment information was through books, golfing magazines, the Internet and through networking and
sharing information with other greenkeepers. A few of the greenkeepers made mention of different
greenkeeper associations where they were able to network with other greenkeepers but one
interviewee felt that biodiversity management was ‘not actively promoted in greenkeeping
associations’.

4.6. Relationships between golf course management and current diversity status
Regression analyses between management scores and species richness, percentage native woody
plants and diversity indices of both fairway and rough plots (Figure 4) revealed that there were no
significant relationships. This indicates that the different management practices assessed had little
effect on percentage of native species, species richness or species diversity. The multiple regression
analyses did not reveal any significant relationships between species diversity or percentage cover
and several possible predictor variables (Table 5). There were significant relationships between
species richness and most of the predictor variables (r2 = 0.995, F 8, 3 = 38.83, p < 0.01) (Table 4). All
but one of the predictor variables showed a significant relationship to species richness, that was
the overall management score (p = 0.431).

5. Discussion
Using the example of urban golf courses, this work illustrates a number of challenges and
opportunities for land use science (Müller & Munroe, 2014) to assess and promote multifunctional
parcels of land within urban settings. Urban land use dynamics and how to maintain or even
 304 M. JARRETT AND C. M. SHACKLETON
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

Figure 4. Relationships between three variables: (a) species richness, (b) percentage of native trees, (c) species diversity; and
management scores. FW = plots between fairways; Plot = plots in the rough; D = Simpson’s Diversity Index.

Table 5. Predictor variables, p-values and significance for regression analysis of woody plant species richness.
Predictor variables p-Value Significant
Percentage native 0.003 Yes
Overall management score 0.387 No
Native-friendly management score 0.012 Yes
Annual membership fees 0.018 Yes
Number of members 0.008 Yes
Number of grounds staff 0.006 Yes
Years of green keeping experience 0.006 Yes

promote biodiversity and the supply of ecosystem services in towns and cities are pressing
questions globally, but which have been particularly neglected in sub-Saharan Africa. As such,
this study touches on core elements of the Global Land Programme (Verburg et al., 2015), such as
land use management in urban settings, and the assumed or real land use trade-offs. The notion of
incorporating other land use objectives and ecosystem service benefits from urban golf courses,
currently managed solely for recreational services to urban golfers, offers new dimensions for the
land-sharing debates through identifying and managing bundles of ecosystem services compatible
with the primary land use, i.e. golf.

5.1. Potential for biodiversity conservation on Eastern Cape golf courses

The ability of urban golf courses to harbour biodiversity is dependent on several factors such as
size, habitat heterogeneity and climate (Hammond & Hudson, 2007; Hudson & Bird, 2009). The
 JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE 305

average size of Eastern Cape golf courses is almost 34 ha, which is smaller than Terman’s (1997)
report of 54 ha, but this was a global estimate comprising a larger and more developed world
sample population. Thirty-four hectares is still a large area of contiguous green space within an
urban setting considering that the average urban park is no bigger than 10 ha (Kaczynski,
Potwarka, & Saelens, 2008), and for Eastern Cape towns, McConnachie, Shackleton, and
McGregor (2008) reported the mean size of public green spaces to be 1.7 ± 0.2 ha. Furthermore,
on average, 66% of Eastern Cape golf courses consist of woody vegetation and rough, which are
areas that are considered out-of-play, and which consequently could be managed for biodiversity.
This falls within the 40–70% range of out-of-play area estimated by Tanner and Gange (2005) in the
UK. Out of play areas can consist of various habitat types, much of which are relatively undisturbed
by course managers and with conscious application could be managed for biodiversity conserva-
tion and ecosystem service provision in a multifunctional land use system.

5.2. Relationships between climate and woody plant diversity

The study golf courses occurred along gradients from inland to the coast, which allowed for
examination of the effect of macro-climate on species richness, percentage ground cover, percen-
tage of native woody plants and species diversity. The general trend was that species richness
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

decreased with increasing altitude and distance from the ocean. A similar trend was also seen for
both the percentage ground cover and native woody plants. This is most likely due to inland
climates being harsher in comparison to the more temperate coastal ones. Another factor to
consider is the vegetation types or biomes in which the study sites occur. The sites occurred in
the particular areas of the Eastern Cape where the biomes include: forest, Albany thicket, savannah,
grassland and fynbos; sites closer to the coastal areas are in the wooded biomes (forest or thicket)
and the inland sites fall within the less wooded savannah, grassland and fynbos biomes (CSIR, 2004;
Rutherford, Mucina, & Powrie, 2006). Forest and Albany thicket are characterised by high woody
cover, increasing the probability that golf courses situated in these biomes have greater woody
plant species diversity, percentage ground cover and percentage of native woody plants. The
grassland and fynbos biomes naturally have fewer woody plants; they are predominantly open
grassland with shrubby vegetation and sparse trees (Lubke, Everard, & Jackson, 1986). Species
diversity is a function of species richness and species evenness/abundance. The fact that climate
and species diversity did not share a relationship means that although the number of species
increases across the sites the abundance/evenness of species may not.

5.3. Greenkeepers’ perceptions of biodiversity conservation on urban golf courses

According to Hammond and Hudson (2007), greenkeepers’ management techniques and attitudes
towards biodiversity conservation are important and can play a vital role in the species composi-
tion of a golf course. Before a greenkeeper can attempt to increase or conserve biodiversity, it is
necessary for him/her to have some understanding of the concept and its importance. The study
revealed a wide range of self-reported understanding of biodiversity among the respondents; half
rated themselves as having no to little understanding and the other half had a moderate under-
standing of biodiversity. This is likely to be a reflection of the type of training/education received
by the greenkeepers. Only one-third of the greenkeepers had received formal training, none of
which included any teachings on biodiversity. This suggests that there is a poor link between golf
course management and biodiversity management, indicating areas for improvement. Urban golf
courses are likely to have a greater chance of increasing local biodiversity levels if greenkeepers are
informed on the latest and most effective management practices and are exposed to practices that
foster biodiversity (Colding & Folke, 2009).
Greenkeepers stated that information on biodiversity management for golf courses was not
easily accessible. It was only accessible to those who were willing and able to seek it and, even if
 306 M. JARRETT AND C. M. SHACKLETON

information was located, it was mostly about North American or European courses and strategies.
To conserve indigenous biodiversity on South African urban golf courses, managers and green-
keepers need to have readily accessible information on good biodiversity management practices
for the South African context. Some of the greenkeepers networked and shared information with
fellow greenkeepers. Communication and information sharing between greenkeepers could have
many positive outcomes for biodiversity conservation on golf courses and should be encouraged; it
should however augment information that is readily available to all greenkeepers. Greenkeeper
associations in South Africa could do more to promote biodiversity management. Social learning or
community of practice models could be a useful approach in this regard.
Initially, only half of the greenkeepers claimed to understand the term ‘biodiversity’. However, after
it was explained, all the greenkeepers agreed that urban golf courses could play a role in biodiversity
conservation. The reasons given for their agreement were the same reasons as reported in previous
studies, such as a ‘parkland in an urban area’ and that golf courses create habitats for a variety of
wildlife. Tanner and Gange (2005) and Hodgkison et al. (2007a) support these same views. One
interviewee’s comment on how courses are an ‘economical’ method of biodiversity conservation
supported the view of Colding et al. (2006) that golf courses are businesses that have the means and
potential to be stewards of biodiversity conservation. Although in some cases the term biodiversity
was not fully understood, there are still links between why greenkeepers feel golf courses can play a
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

role in conservation and information in the literature (Colding & Folke, 2009).
Most of the greenkeepers believed that a high level of woody plant diversity on golf courses
was of importance, although some believed it was limited. Besides the aesthetic appeal that high
plant diversity could bring to a golf course, some greenkeepers were aware of how high plant
diversity may contribute to a better and healthier ecosystem. Colding and Folke (2009) suggest
that golf courses in urban areas are perceived to have a higher ecological value than golf courses in
rural areas because their ecological value increases with increased anthropogenic influence; many
courses are effectively islands within an urban matrix. We argue that this island analogy demands
that urban golf courses actively become more than just sites for playing golf, but embrace a more
land use science approach in managing the courses to supply a variety of ecosystem services to
both golfers and the broader urban society. The ecological value of individual golf courses can be
further enhanced by increasing landscape heterogeneity and connectivity on courses, which allows
for species movement between patches of vegetation, acting as corridors that link other urban
patches within the urban ecosystem (Colding, 2007). Landscapes can be made more heteroge-
neous by altering the composition and arrangement so that patches are linked to create ecologi-
cally functional units (Colding, 2007). In the context of urban golf courses, this can be achieved in
part by increasing the woody plant diversity and cover. However, golf courses are first and
foremost golf courses and hence managers and greenkeepers may be pressurised by club mem-
bers to configure the golf course in a certain way because they are paying members (Wheeler &
Nauright, 2006). However, most of the greenkeepers said that members of the club had little
influence on management. In this regard, interviewees saw increasing woody plant diversity as
both positive and negative because this may create more of a challenge to golfers.
The majority of the cases revealed that golf club members’ influence on the woody plant
composition and management thereof was of weak to medium strength. This indicates that the
greenkeepers and golf club committees are the ones that have the most say in how an individual
golf course looks and is managed. Therefore, the prospect of conserving biodiversity on golf
courses relies, for the most part, on golf course management within the constraints of financial
and climatic contexts.

5.4. Biodiversity management

Only 25% of the golf courses had any explicit biodiversity conservation objectives, but more than
60% of the greenkeepers said that they would like to see more being done to conserve biodiversity
 JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE 307

on their golf courses. Terman (1997) and Hunter, Kealy, and Forrest (2010) believe that natural golf
courses are the best way to promote biodiversity conservation on urban golf courses, albeit under
good management. Designing or even restoring a golf course to be more natural helps to support
meta-populations of native fauna and flora as well as the ecosystems on which they depend
(Terman, 1997). The biodiversity conservation objectives mentioned by the greenkeepers included
the reduction of non-native vegetation and the planting of more native tree species. Terman (1997)
further states that native vegetation provides the highest quality habitat for local fauna and that
the best management plan is to manage golf courses so that the habitat requirements of native
species are met. Therefore, a major management goal for all golf courses should be to increase the
proportion of native woody plants and limit the proportion of non-native ones, and eradicate
invasive alien species. Non-native woody plants have a negative effect on local biodiversity
because they alter the composition, structure and complexity of an ecosystem (Tanner & Gange,
2005). Hunter et al. (2010) found that ecosystem functionality could be greatly improved on golf
courses where native tree numbers are low by planting more native trees.
We found no relationship between the coarse, qualitative management scores and the species
richness, percentage native woody plants and species diversity. There are three possible explana-
tions for this lack of a relationship. First is that species richness, percentage native woody plants
and species diversity are influenced more by factors beyond the control of greenkeepers, such as
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

climate and soils. Second is that the list of management practices was not comprehensive enough
and did not cover fully the management practices that could promote biodiversity. Third is that
since most of the managers did not undertake specific actions to promote biodiversity, the
variation across the management scores was insufficient, especially considering the small sample
size. However, woody plant species richness was significantly correlated with actions such as
native-friendly management, annual golf club membership fees, number of members, number of
grounds staff and the length of experience of the greenkeepers. It is easy to assume that the
number of grounds staff and number of club members is a reflection of the relative income of a
course. The assumption is that the more members a golf club has, the greater the annual fee
income to the club and therefore the greater financial resources for hiring grounds staff, tree
planting and maintenance which in turn can contribute to better biodiversity outcomes. Hammond
and Hudson (2007), Burgin and Wotherspoon (2009), Colding and Folke (2009) and Hudson and
Bird (2009) all highlight that through effective management, golf courses can increase their
biodiversity, and that managing golf courses for biodiversity conservation contributes to increasing
biodiversity in the broader urban setting.

6. Conclusion
South Africa experiences a wide range of threats to its many habitats and species. Land use change
and urbanisation are among these. As a mega-diversity country it is important that authorities and
citizens respond to these threats in an informed, considered and integrated manner. With dimin-
ishing areas of public green space as towns and cities densify and expand, biodiversity-friendly
strategies need to be promoted on the remaining green areas on both private and public lands.
Urban golf courses can potentially play a major role because of their relatively large size for an
urban green space, having a large proportion of the area (>60%) under limited use, and relative to
many public urban green spaces, have reasonable financial resources to support management
objectives.
This study has shown that the sampled urban golf courses in the Eastern Cape of South Africa
are large and have a large proportion of their area as out of play zones. This means that they could
be managed for urban biodiversity conservation alongside the needs of the golfing members.
Second, the botanical survey results show that a wide richness of tree and shrub species are
supported on golf courses, but this is compromised by the presence of alien invasive species (at
every course) and for some courses, a predominance of non-native species. This potentially reduces
 308 M. JARRETT AND C. M. SHACKLETON

the nature or quantity of additional ecosystem services provided. For example, urban bird species
richness and abundance in streets is lower for non-native trees than indigenous ones (Shackleton,
2016). The presence of invasive alien species means that they can act as sources of seed for
invasion of neighbouring properties.
Lastly, the survey of greenkeepers revealed limited knowledge of biodiversity and strategies to
manage or increase it, but high willingness. Implementing biodiversity conservation on urban golf
courses requires informed and committed greenkeepers. This requires available information and
training courses that are locally relevant. The training courses available to greenkeepers in South
Africa would benefit from specific modules on the importance of biodiversity and strategies to
promote it in different biomes of the country, rather than having to rely on information from
northern countries. In the shorter term, relatively ubiquitous strategies would include favouring
indigenous plants over non-native ones, control of invasive alien plants, increasing structural
complexity, limiting physical activities in the out of play areas, labelling trees, limiting use of
chemicals and engendering participation of club members in citizen science approaches in mon-
itoring of species of particular interest. National conservation NGOs are likely to be able to assist
with designing context-specific materials and training greenkeepers and club members. Such
actions will not only increase biodiversity on urban golf courses, but will bolster other ecosystem
services (such a recreational and educational values, carbon sequestration and mitigation of urban
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

temperature extremes), as well as providing a model for other privately owned lands such as
corporate grounds and perhaps public institutions (e.g. libraries, schools and hospitals).
Implementation of such strategies can be prompted or achieved by conservation agencies and
relevant city authorities raising awareness among urban golf course managers and working with
them to implement more biodiversity and environmentally friendly management strategies. The
first step would be building awareness through training courses and materials and, in time,
requiring urban golf courses to include statements and objectives regarding biodiversity in the
course management plans.

Acknowledgements
This work was sponsored by the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and
Technology and the National Research Foundation of South Africa. Any opinion, finding, conclusion or recommenda-
tion expressed in this material is that of the authors and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard. We are
grateful to the greenkeepers for permission to work on golf courses and for their willingness to share information
with us. We are appreciative for comments on an earlier draft of this paper by James Gambiza.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was sponsored by the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and
Technology and the National Research Foundation of South Africa. Any opinion, finding, conclusion or recommenda-
tion expressed in this material is that of the authors and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard.

References
Alvey, A.A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5, 195–
201. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003
Baker, P.J., Molony, S.E., Stone, E., Cuthill, I.C., & Harris, S. (2008). Cats about town: Is predation by free-ranging pet cats
Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations? IBIS, 150, 86–99. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00836.x
 JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE 309

Burgin, S., & Wotherspoon, D. (2009). The potential for golf courses to support restoration of biodiversity for
biobanking offsets. Urban Ecosystems, 12, 145–155. doi:10.1007/s11252-008-0076-5
Colding, J. (2007). Ecological land-use complementation for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape &
Urban Planning, 81, 46–55. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.016
Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2009). The role of golf courses in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management.
Ecosystems, 12, 191–206. doi:10.1007/s10021-008-9217-1
Colding, J., Lundberg, J., & Folke, C. (2006). Incorporating green-area user groups in urban ecosystem management.
Ambio, 35, 237–244. doi:10.1579/05-A-098R.1
CSIR. (2004). Eastern Cape state of the environment report. Durban: CSIR.
Department of Environmental Affairs. (2014). National environmental management: Biodiversity act 2004 (Act no. 10 of
2004): Alien and invasive species lists, 2014. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs.
Dobbs, C., Nitschke, C.R., & Kendal, D. (2014). Global drivers and tradeoffs of three urban vegetation ecosystem
services. Plos One, 9(11), e113000. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113000
Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., & Benton, T.G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban
environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
González-García, A., & Gomez-Sal, A. (2008). Private urban spaces or ‘patios’ as a key element of urban ecology in
tropical America. Human Ecology, 36, 291–300. doi:10.1007/s10745-007-9155-0
Grau, R., Kuemmerle, T., & Macchi, L. (2013). Beyond ‘land sparing versus land sharing’: Environmental heterogeneity,
globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature conservation. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 5, 477–483. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.001
Hammond, R.A., & Hudson, M.D. (2007). Environmental management of UK golf courses for biodiversity-attitudes and
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

actions. Landscape & Urban Planning, 83, 127–136. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.004

Hepcan, S. (2013). Analyzing the pattern and connectivity of urban green spaces: A case study of Izmir, Turkey. Urban
Ecosystems, 16, 279–293. doi:10.1007/s11252-012-0271-2
Hodgkison, S., Hero, J.M., & Warnken, J. (2007b). The efficacy of small-scale conservation efforts, as assessed on
Australian golf courses. Biological Conservation, 135, 592–602. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.001
Hodgkison, S.C., Warnken, D., & Hero, J.M. (2007a). The conservation value of suburban golf courses in a rapidly
urbanising region of Australia. Landscape & Urban Planning, 79, 323–337. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.009
Hudson, M.R., & Bird, D.M. (2009). Recommendations for design and management of golf courses and green spaces
based on surveys of breeding bird communities in Montreal. Landscape & Urban Planning, 92, 335–346.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.017
Hunter, A., Kealy, E., & Forrest, M. (2010). The current use of indigenous trees on Irish golf courses. Acta Horticulturae,
885, 153–159. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.885.20
Jeon, S.B., Olofsson, P., & Woodcock, C.E. (2014). Land use change in New England: A reversal of the forest transition.
Journal of Land Use Science, 9, 105–130. doi:10.1080/1747423X.2012.754962
Kaczynski, A.T., Potwarka, L.R., & Saelens, P.B.E. (2008). Association of park size, distance, and features with
physical activity in neighborhood parks. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1451–1456. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2007.129064
Loram, A., Tratalos, J., Warren, P.H., & Gaston, K.J. (2007). Urban domestic gardens (X): The extent & structure of the
resource in five major cities. Landscape Ecology, 22, 601–615. doi:10.1007/s10980-006-9051-9
Lubke, R.A., Everard, D.A., & Jackson, S. (1986). The biomes of the Eastern Cape with emphasis on their conservation.
Bothalia, 261, 251–261.
McConnachie, M.M., Shackleton, C.M., & McGregor, G. (2008). Extent of public green space and alien species in ten small
towns in the thicket biome, South Africa. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.12.003
McKinney, M.L. (2002). Urbanisation, biodiversity and conservation. Bioscience, 52, 883–890. For a more-detailed
account of the issues to be addressed by the Journal of Land Use Science see. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052
[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2
Müller, D., & Munroe, D.K. (2014). Current and future challenges in land-use science. Journal of Land Use Science, 9,
133–142. doi:10.1080/1747423X.2014.883731
Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., Balaban, O., Doll, C.N., Moreno-Peñaranda, R., Gasparatos, A., Iossifova, D., & Suwa, A. (2011).
Cities and biodiversity: Perspectives and governance challenges for implementing the convention on biological
diversity (CBD) at the city level. Biological Conservation, 144, 1302–1313. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.12.007
Rutherford, M.C., Mucina, L., & Powrie, L.W. (2006). Biomes and bioregions of southern Africa. In: Mucina, L. &
Rutherford, M.C. (Eds.). The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia, 19, 29–51.
SA Explorer. (2016). Retrieved November 15, 2016, from http://www.saexplorer.co.za/
Scolozzi, R., & Geneletti, D. (2012). A multi-scale qualitative approach to assess the impact of urbanisation on natural
habitats and their connectivity. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 36, 9–22. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.03.001
Shackleton, C.M. (2012). Is there no urban forestry or greening in the developing world? Scientific Research & Essays, 7,
3329–3335. doi:10.5897/SRE11.1117
Shackleton, C.M. (2016). Do indigenous trees support more biodiversity than alien ones? Evidence using mistletoes
and birds from South Africa. Forests, 7, 134 (online). doi:10.3390/f7070134
 310 M. JARRETT AND C. M. SHACKLETON

Shackleton, C.M., Blair, A., De Lacy, P., Kaoma, H., Mugwagwa, N., Sachikonye, M.T., & Walton, W. (2017). How important
is green infrastructure in small and medium-sized towns? Lessons from South Africa. Landscape & Urban Planning.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.007
Simpson, E.H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688. doi:10.1038/163688a0
StatsSA (Statistics South Africa). (2011). Census 2011 municipal report - Eastern Cape, 2011, Statistics South Africa.
Pretoria, South Africa.
Tanner, R.A., & Gange, A.C. (2005). Effects of golf courses on local biodiversity. Landscape & Urban Planning, 71,
137–146. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(04)00034-9
Terman, M.R. (1997). Natural links: Naturalistic golf courses as wildlife habitat. Landscape & Urban Planning, 38,
183–197. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00033-9
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem
and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape & Urban Planning, 81,
167–178. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001
Van der Veken, S., Verheyen, K., & Hermy, M. (2004). Plant species loss in an urban area (Turnhout, Belgium) from 1880
to 1999 and its environmental determinants. Flora, 199, 516–523. doi:10.1078/0367-2530-00180
Vaz, E.D.-H., Caetano, M., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Trapped between antiquity and urbanism – a multi-criteria assessment
model of the greater Cairo Metropolitan area. Journal of Land Use Science, 6, 283–299. doi:10.1080/
1747423X.2010.519059
Verburg, P.H., Crossman, N., Ellis, E.C., Heinimann, A., Hostert, P., Mertz, O., . . . Zhen, L. (2015). Land system science and
sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene, 12, 29–41.
doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2015.09.004
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017

Wheeler, K., & Nauright, J. (2006). A global perspective on the environmental impact of golf. Sport in Society, 9,
427–443. doi:10.1080/17430430600673449
World Weather Online. (2016). Retrieved November 15, 2016, from http://www.worldweatheronline.com/

Appendix 1.

Golf course manager interview -

A) Background
1. What is your age and gender?
2. How long have you worked in golf course management?
3. Have you received any training or education in this field? If so, what?
4. How old is the golf course?
5. How many grounds staff are employed on your golf course?
6. What do you understand by the term biodiversity?
7. Are you aware of any species of conservation concern on or surrounding the golf course?
B) Management
1. Are there any biodiversity conservation objectives/targets in place on your golf course; if so what are they?
2. The following is a list of management practices that are regarded to promote plant biodiversity; please tick and
rank the practices that are implemented on your golf course. Ranking works as follows: 1-not applicable; 2-never; 3-
seldom; 4-often; 5- always.

Practices Yes or no (tick) Rank (1-5)

Leave large natural wooded areas undisturbed
Maintain undergrowth and leaf litter in wooded areas
Designate ‘no mow areas’ in out-of-play areas
Use native plants when planting
Removal/reduction of non-native tree species
Alien invasive species control
Leave old/dead trees in situ

C) Manager perceptions of biodiversity conservation on golf courses

1. Rank the level of agreement with the following statement: ‘Urban golf courses can play a role in biodiversity
conservation’ (1-strongly disagree; 5-strongly agree). Please provide a reason for the given ranking.
2. Rank the importance of high plant diversity on golf courses (1-not very important; 5-very important). Please provide
a reason for the given ranking.
 JOURNAL OF LAND USE SCIENCE 311

3. How strong is the golf course members’ influence on the vegetative composition of the golf course? (1-not very
strong; 5-very strong).
4. Would you like to see more being done to promote biodiversity on your golf course? If so, what?
5. Do you feel that information on good biodiversity management practices for golf courses is easily accessible?
Please elaborate.
6. Where do you access information about biodiversity management on golf courses?
Downloaded by [] at 12:22 27 September 2017