This interesting December article from the BBC's website gives a little statistical background behind the claim that there could be a 'plague' of golf courses sweeping through the nation:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24378868
It focuses on the plight of the county of Surrey and a particularly hot debate over the need to create its 142nd(!) golf course at Cherkley Court... within its (just) 1662.5 square miles of land.
It then goes on to list the counties with the most percentages of land covered by golf courses and the number of 'holes' the courses contain.
Unfortunately, it does not then go into detail about how other land uses compare... because the figure of the largest 'offender', Merseyside (at 2.82% coverage*) is arguably very low if not given context. Some people may think that a figure of 2.82% is very little, and they'd be right really... so what was then needed was some other big 'offenders' listed just so we can have an idea of what impact these golf courses truly have.
Golf is a popular (or at least growing) sport no doubt, and the article presumably attempts to draw out the needs of its golfers by mentioning how many holes they get as well as land. It mentions the average figure per hole as 2.5ha and that a metropolitan area in Florida, USA has just 212 people per hole (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/mar/08/study-collier-marco-tops-national-leaderboard-for/?print=1).
Oddly, the charts then do not then give equivalent figures for the British counties... but a quick trip to Wikipedia gives me 1,381,200 for the population of Merseyside alongside its 729 holes... therefore giving us 1895 people per hole.
So, so far nothing helps the people arguing against having more golf courses. But what is interesting is the mention of the plight of Bermuda, where just under 10% of the whole (and very small) country is given over to golf courses! And the article does well at making one question just how much golf a place needs. It does not take sides.
For the record, I am not a big fan of golf courses. I like playing it from time to time, and don't think it is a good walk spoiled, so don't think I am really biased here. However, it is still an elitist sport in my opinion, and not the best type of 'sport' that should be supported by Governments to keep people healthy and happy. Also, they are a very good 'chameleon' at convincing people that they are 'good for the environment', because they are 'pretty', have nice big trees and lots of lovely green grass. What people do not know is that they are potentially very bad for the environment, if built in the place of true natural landscape**, and do not encourage/support the kind of biodiversity one might think. They also require a hell of a lot of water in maintenance... which we can't always afford.
Anyway, what the article also points out is that the percentages do not include the driving ranges, pitch and putts, and non-affiliated to Golf England courses. So... many of the places where 'ordinary folk' first encounter the game are not even covered.
For the record, the UK has 23.43% of its land defined as 'cultivated', but has over 70% of all land in agricultural use in total. It also has 11.65% under forest and woodland (DEFRA figures)... leaving very little left for the (subtracted) category of 'urban and other land', which golf courses (as well as housing, transport, sand dunes, inland waters...) must sit within.
This figure is 14.43% of all land for the whole of the UK... and therefore represents a truer aspect of what amount of the country is actually on the front line for potential change.
If we take the very rough figure that 1% of the UK is covered in golf courses, this actually represents a figure nearer 7% of the actual living space that we have given over to golfing. And, interpolated for Merseyside, gives a figure close to 20%.
In my humble opinion, that is enough for now. We don't have any virgin forest to hack away for the easy creation of more courses, and too many other land uses and needs in the areas where most people (who may want to then play golf) actually live. Golf courses are big creatures, and selfish. By definition, they don't allow many people to enjoy the sport at the same time in the way that other, more communal, sports do.
And I just can't understand how we can live in an era where we sell off school playing fields for housing but are happy to let new golf courses keep nibbling away at incredibly precious and fragile land. It's almost as if we care more for the needs of rich retired people as opposed to our children.
So... if you are desperate to play golf, then get out the Xbox, or take a holiday in Scotland.
Or Bermuda.
* Surrey is third, with a mere 2.65%
** http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html
P.S. If you are still in any doubt as to whether a figure of 2.82% can be a lot in terms of land use, read this similarly BBC-based article from way back in 2012 which suggests that there is a myth, an urban myth if you like, that the UK is "concreted over": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096.
It suggests a very tidy figure of 2.27% of for the proportion of England's landscape (not the UK's) which is "built on" and whilst, like a lot of such investigations, one can find a way to pick (golf?) holes in the statistics, it is both scary and fun to suggest that some parts of England could now be defined as more golf course than urban built-up space!
No comments:
Post a Comment