|
Narrative Summary:
PROBLEM RESEARCHED / BACKGROUND
The future ability of the Southwest Florida environment to sustain
healthy wading bird populations is in doubt. Already, these birds,
which are seen as “bioindicators of the health of wetland
ecosystems in Florida” (Smith, Richardson, & Collopy 1995
p. 247) have collectively reduced their nesting attempts by 90%
since the 1940’s (Frederick and Spalding 1994). Habitat loss
and alterations to the natural hydrological patterns in the Everglades
have been cited as reasons for their precipitous decline (Bancroft,
Strong, Sawicki 1994, Hoffman & Jewell 1994, Powell, Bjork,
Odgen, Paul, Powell, & Robertson 1989). The astonishing pace
at which land is being developed, and the resulting destruction
of habitat, shows no signs of slowing. Regarding the future of
development
in the region, Al Hoffman, Jr., the founder and Chairman of the
Board of WCI Communities, Inc., remarked, “There’s
no power on earth that can stop it...It’s an inevitable tidal
wave!” (Grunwald 2002). Census figures show that he may be
correct since the population of Collier County grew by 65% during
the decade of the 1990’s (Audubon International 2003b).
As habitat for wading birds is lost or degraded,
non-traditional foraging sites, such as golf courses, will become
increasingly
important for this suite of species. All golf courses in Southwest Florida
use constructed lakes for a variety of purposes, both aesthetic
and functional, with many being used as foraging sites for wading
birds. Currently, Audubon International, a not-for-profit environmental
organization, which is dedicated “...to improve(ing) the quality
of life and the environment through research, education, and conservation
assistance,” (Audubon International 2004a, no page) certifies
golf courses that have a commitment to environmental quality, which
includes “identify(ing) habitat enhancement / restoration
projects” (Audubon International 2003e, no page). As with
approximately 500 other Audubon societies in the United States,
Audubon International is not affiliated with the National Audubon
Society. With the help of the United States Golf Association, Ron
Dodson helped establish the Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary
Program for Golf Courses in 1991 (Dodson 1992). To attain status in the Gold Signature Sanctuary
Program, which represents their highest level of environmental
stewardship,
Audubon International will prepare an Environmental Master Plan
in addition to being involved with the project prior to the “final
sighting and design of the project” (Audubon International
2003e). The Environmental Master Plan includes an ecological design
for the golf club, a natural resource management plan, and a community
education and information plan (Audubon International 2004b). Also,
a member of the Audubon International staff will visit the site
twenty times. The fees associated with the Gold Level certification
include a $100,000 technical service fee, a $9,000 program fee,
and an annual membership fee of $500.
RELATIONSHIPS INVESTIGATED
For this study, the suitability of wading bird foraging habitat
on three Audubon International Certified Gold golf courses was
compared to that on three non-Audubon courses in the Fort Myers / Bonita
Springs / Naples area of Florida. It was assumed for this study
that “habitat enhancement / restoration projects” (Audubon
International 2003e, no page) on the Audubon International golf
courses would include wading bird foraging habitat since wading
birds are “bioindicators of the health of wetland ecosystems
in Florida” (Smith, Richardson, & Collopy 1995 p. 247).
Presumably, the amount of suitable wading bird foraging habitat
on the Certified Gold courses would be greater than that found
on
typical Florida golf courses. In order to evaluate this premise,
I randomly selected three non-Audubon courses. These courses were
then compared to the three Certified Gold Audubon International
golf courses on a series of eight (8) indicators that influence
the suitability of wading bird foraging habitat. The resulting
data
allows me to determine if Audubon International certification results
in improved foraging habitat for wading birds beyond what is found
on typical Florida golf courses. Results of the study are examined
within the larger context of sustainable development and natural
capital.
METHODS
An evaluation matrix was developed in order to analyze eight (8)
indicators that influence the suitability of wading bird foraging
habitat, and courses were ranked separately for each indicator.
The Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review provides
a precedent for using an evaluation matrix as a tool to assess environmental
quality (Florida Power and Light 2001). Anderson and Gutzwiller
(1996) recommend that habitat features at both the micro and macro
scale be analyzed. Accordingly, site-specific factors, management
issues, and the overall landscape scale are all represented in the
matrix. With the exception of the analysis of negative adjacent
land uses and golf course proximity to natural preserve areas, no
indicators were chosen that are outside the realm of influence of
the design, construction, or management of the golf course. Each
indicator of habitat suitability was given a set of parameters based
on the literature that were tested in the field or collected through
interviews with golf course managers and superintendents. Values
were assigned to each of these parameters through the data collection
process in order to draw comparisons between each course for the
series of indicators. The following is the list of general indicators
of habitat suitability that were tested: water depth, water type,
vegetation (riparian buffer and aquatic), size of individual wetlands
and total wetland area on each golf course, buffer zones, bottom
surface composition, pesticide and herbicide usage, and landscape
context.
Overall Comparison of Audubon International Certified vs.
Non-Audubon Golf Courses
Mean rank was calculated by averaging the rank from 1 to 6, with
1 representing the best potential suitability and 6 the worst, of
the Audubon and the non-Audubon golf courses. The mean rank, mean,
and standard deviation were calculated and reported for the following
metrics, which were sub-categorized according to quantitative and
qualitative measurements:
Quantitative Measurements
Total available foraging area at the 6 inch contour (acres), Total
wetland acreage, Total ephemeral wetland acreage, and Percentage
of available wetland at the 6 inch contour
Qualitative Measurements
Total percentage of wetland bordered by aquatic vegetation, Average
width of aquatic vegetation, Vegetation mass (square feet),
Total
percentage of vegetative cover, Wetlands with tall and dense
vegetation, Pounds of nitrogen applied per 1000 square feet,
Total acreage
of manicured turf, Total acreage of environmentally sensitive
preserve areas, Average width of riparian buffer, and Percentage
of turf buffered
RESULTS
Results of this study, which are examined within the context of
sustainable development and natural capital, include the following
four critical metrics: total available foraging area at the 6 inch
contour, percentage of available wetland at the 6 inch contour,
vegetation mass, and total percentage of vegetative cover. These
metrics were determined based on the existing literature, which
consistently notes that water depth followed by vegetation structure
and composition have the greatest degree of influence on the ability
of wading birds to successfully feed.
Total Available Foraging Area at the 6 inch Contour (acres)
A total of 1,353 depth measurements were taken on six golf
courses, and a contour model was built for each wetland to
a maximum depth
of 36 inches based on their relevant measurements. For the purposes
of this study, total available foraging area is reported at
the
6 inch contour since ten (10) out of the fourteen (14) birds
in the assemblage can successfully feed at this depth. The
importance
of water depth is emphasized by the fact that only 6 of these
birds can successfully feed in water eight inches deep. The
Audubon International
Certified Gold golf courses ranked first, third, and fifth overall
in this category while the non-Audubon courses ranked second,
fourth
and sixth. Percentage of Available Foraging Area at the 6 inch contour
Percentage of available wetland is a more accurate indicator of
relative habitat suitability than the statistics for total available
foraging area since the total acreage category is skewed to the
courses with the most water. Percentage of available foraging area
was calculated by dividing the total wetland area at the 6 inch
depth by the total wetland area on each golf course. Again, the
Audubon International Certified Gold golf courses rank first, third
and fifth overall.
Vegetation Mass (square feet)
Vegetation mass was calculated by multiplying the total linear feet
of wetland bordered by aquatic vegetation by the average width of
aquatic vegetation for each golf course. The Audubon International
Certified Gold golf courses rank second, third, and fifth overall
in this category while the non-Audubon golf courses rank first,
fourth, and sixth.
Total Percentage of Vegetative Cover
Total percentage of vegetative cover was calculated by dividing
vegetation mass by total wetland acreage on each golf course. The
Audubon International Certified Gold golf courses rank first, third,
and fifth overall in this category while the non-Audubon golf courses
rank second, fourth, and sixth.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
The results of this study suggest that in relation to the non-Audubon
courses, Audubon International is generally more successful in meeting
the secondary habitat requirements for foraging wading birds, but
their Gold Certification does not always guarantee improved suitability
for the site-specific indicators that actually determine the viability
of the potential foraging area.
Watson (1998) found that golf courses enrolled
in the Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuaries Program
can charge 34% more in greens fees
than non-Audubon courses based on people’s willingness to
pay (WTP) for “environmentally certified goods” (Watson
1998 cited in Singleton 2001 p. 3). In their promotional literature,
Audubon International (2003b) acknowledges the economic benefit
to developers and golf courses that their certification provides.
They write, “The designation (Gold Certification) is useful
in permitting, marketing and sales efforts, or other appropriate
activities” (Audubon International 2003e, no page). Through
their promotion of environmentally sound and sustainable development,
Audubon International and their business partners, therefore, are
realizing the benefits of manmade capital, which is produced from
natural capital (Franceschi and Kahn 2003).
Audubon International’s close ties to the United States Golf
Association, however, raise important questions about their objectivity.
The results of this study suggest that for Audubon International,
and some golf developments, there is greater value in the perception
of the existence of habitat than actually creating quality habitat.
Pelican Preserve, in particular, presents a façade of habitat
suitability. It is clear that the Audubon International certification
process in no way guarantees equity among their member courses in
terms of habitat suitability. Rather, the various levels (Gold,
Silver, and Bronze), along with Audubon International’s duration
of involvement with a specific project, reflect the degree of financial
commitment from the developer or owner, not a set standard that
Audubon International uses as a guide to award worthy golf courses
or developments. This results in a distinct inequity for some members
of the Audubon Signature Program where the same level of
habitat suitability on one Certified Gold course is drastically
better, or much worse, than another Certified Gold course. Raptor
Bay, for example, is far superior to both Old Collier and Pelican
Preserve in terms of the actual provision of wading bird foraging
habitat.
Despite the “annual recertification visits”, it is
very unlikely that Pelican Preserve would ever be removed from Audubon
International’s roll of Certified Gold Signature Sanctuaries,
especially considering Audubon International’s
recent partnership, valued at $2.5 million, with WCI Communities,
Inc., the developer of the property (Audubon International 2003a).
According to Audubon International, their relationship with WCI
includes plans for ten additional communities in Florida, all of
which were planned to be Certified Gold at the time of publication
of this document (Audubon International 2003d). Explaining WCI’s
commitment to environmental quality, Audubon International notes,
“WCI (has) a full-time team of four environmental managers
dedicated to building sustainable communities and educating consumers,
communities, and industry leaders" (Audubon International 2003a).
Mirroring this statement in the wake of Audubon International’s
partnership with WCI, Ron Dodson, President and CEO of Audubon International,
explains “WCI is clearly leading the way for individuals and
builders to drive change and help protect our natural resources.
One person...one home...one community...one industry at a time”
(WCI Communities 2003). Al Hoffman, Jr., who is the founder and
Chairman of the Board of WCI Communities, Inc. as well as the former
‘National Co-Chair and the Florida State Finance Chairman
for the George W. Bush for President Campaign’, has a slightly
less committed view on protecting Florida’s natural resources
(WCI Communities 2003). Protesting regulations designed to save
Florida panther habitat, Hoffman said, “What is the cost of
protecting this bastardized species? How much land is society going
to sacrifice?” (Grunwald 2002, no page). Further evidence
of Hoffman’s [lack of] commitment to the environment is exemplified
in the following statement that he made in 2002: “We need
to protect the environment for our own selfish motives...If we destroy
the environment, it won’t serve us anymore...(regulators)...think
the world will end if they can’t protect that little tree” (Grunwald
2002, no page).
Obviously, statements like those of Al Hoffman,
Jr. will not be published in any of the promotional literature
for Audubon International
or WCI since the perception of eco-friendly design is in the best
economic interests of both organizations. In fact, public support
for the ‘inevitable tidal wave’ of development might
erode without the perception of conservation within the context
of these developments. It is also ironic that WCI Communities professes
a commitment to sustainability considering Hoffman’s leadership
of the controversial Florida Council of 100, a business group that
advocated a proposal based on a previous plan devised by Azurix,
an Enron subsidiary, that sought to “...take over part of
the Everglades restoration in exchange for state permits to buy
and sell water” (Hollander 2005, p. 20). Their revised plan
attempted to facilitate “movement of water around the state”
by “undermining the geographic logic of the water management
districts” that would ultimately limit the ability of these
districts to preserve natural hydrological patterns and promote
water conservation (Hollander 2005, p. 20). Clearly, this plan was
an attempt not to promote sustainability or natural resource protection,
but one that would fuel more development and ensure improved cash
flow for the business interests represented on the Florida Council
of 100. Previous research (Bancroft et al. 1994) has shown that
this plan, if implemented, would undoubtedly have had a serious
negative impact on wading bird populations in this region. In a
bizarre legal motion, Hollander (2005) writes that the Association
of Florida Community Developers, of which WCI Communities is a member,
challenged the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s
findings “regarding the amount of water that should be reserved
for Everglades and other wetland restoration in Florida” based
on the argument that the Everglades are part of “natural systems
that no longer exist” (Caputo 2004 cited in Hollander 2005,
p. 21). Hollander continues, “The thrust of water politics
is not behind restoring the Everglades ecosystem but rather it is
about storing water for purposes of development and ultimately,
about privatizing at least some of the state’s water resources.
Moreover, it is also about cementing political economic ties that
will further political ambitions at the national scale” (Hollander
2005, p. 24). Al Hoffman’s willingness to undermine science
in favor of unchecked development, along with his close ties with
the Bush family, indicates that money and political power are more
important to him than genuinely sustainable development. Audubon
International, because of their partnership with WCI Communities,
is complicit in the pursuit of an agenda that is antithetical to
the fundamentals of sustainable development, which they claim to
promote. In their Principles For Sustainable Resource Management,
Audubon International writes, “Sustainable development and
sustainable resource management means using natural resources in
ways beneficial to human beings, now and into the future, and at
the same time not depleting those resources nor adversely impacting
biological diversity” (Audubon International 1998). If Al
Hoffman, WCI Communities, and the Florida Council of 100 were to
realize their goal of “...allowing private interests to sell
water without regulatory interference” (Hollander 2005, p.
20) the precise result would be the depletion of natural resources
along with negative impacts to biological diversity.
Although Audubon International is classified
as a not-for-profit environmental organization, it is clear from
their history that
they were created to advance, at least in part, the interests of
the golf development industry. The results of this study support
the conclusion that Audubon International’s primary interest
is in promoting development. Whether or not the future developments
that they certify meet the standards set forth in their literature,
or the perception of what those standards mean, is of secondary
importance. Furthermore, research by White (2003) shows that
improved
foraging habitat for wading birds is not positively correlated
with Audubon International certification. While only two (2)
of the twelve
(12) courses in the White (2003) study set were Audubon International
Certified Signature Sanctuaries, it is worth noting
that they ranked last and second to last in the “probability of
observing an open water wader” category (White 2003, p. 83).
The language of sustainability is embedded in many of Audubon International’s
publications, and they certainly recognize that there is both a
value, and significant public interest in preserving natural capital
so that future generations will not have diminished environmental
resources as a result of the actions of the current generation (Franceschi
and Kahn 2003). The results of this study indicate that Audubon
International’s rhetoric is decoupled from genuine sustainability
in their developments as they relate to wading bird populations.
In fact, evidence collected by Gawlik and Sklar (2000) suggests
that, in relation to Raptor Bay, birds that choose to forage at
Pelican Preserve and Old Collier would incur increased energetic
costs, which could have a serious negative impact on their population
numbers because of the decreased amount of available foraging area,
as determined by water depth. In their study of ecological traps,
Kokko and Sutherland write, “...when managing habitats, it
is necessary to consider not just the actual habitat quality, but
also the perceived quality. Creating high-quality habitat without
the right cues will be of little use, while allowing poor-quality
habitat to appear very suitable might be damaging to the entire
population” (Kokko and Southerland 2001, p. 548). This concern
is especially relevant for golf course wetlands since it can be
assumed that these highly managed landscapes will have decreased
water quality, relative to pristine wetlands, as well as the potential
to expose birds to highly toxic insecticides and herbicides. Results
of this study indicate that Pelican Preserve wetlands, in general,
are largely unsuitable for foraging purposes, but cues such as
vegetation
structure and abundance may suggest otherwise to wading birds searching
for foraging sites.
Pearce noted, “...modern environmentalism has failed to address
the underlying causes of environmental degradation, which lie in
the economic sphere. Simply stated, conservation appears not to
pay when compared with the economic returns that society gets from
converting natural assets into (explicitly) commercial ones”
(Pearce 1998, p. 23). The golf industry, through Audubon International,
has opportunistically capitalized on this concern. The realization
that golf courses historically have a bad reputation environmentally
and that conservation could be achieved in the context of the golf
environment prompted the formation of Audubon International. However,
it is important that conservation efforts on golf courses and in
developments strive to move beyond a façade of habitat suitability.
The danger, of course, emerges that approval for future developments
may potentially be at least partially contingent on the agreement
to create and restore wildlife habitat. If the habitat created
is
of little value in relation to the habitat that existed on-site
prior to disturbance, the target population of the manufactured
habitat could be in grave danger.
Several recent studies have shown that golf
courses do present unique conservation opportunities (Moul & Elliott 1993, Key
2003, Gordon, Jones, & Philips 2004). This study observed suitable
habitat, especially at Raptor Bay. However, an ethical conflict
arises when it is obvious that some Audubon International courses
are promoted as furthering sustainability and wildlife conservation,
which includes “identify(ing) habitat enhancement/restoration
projects” (Audubon International 2003e) when the evidence
shows that, in fact, very little viable wading bird foraging habitat
actually exists on two of the three Certified Gold golf courses
in question. By couching their developments in the language of
sustainability
and conservation, Audubon International has attempted to reverse
the trend observed by Pearce (1998) so that golf courses become
part of the conservation movement, thereby allowing economic development
and wildlife conservation to co-exist regardless of the reality
of habitat provision.
Perhaps Audubon International subscribes to
the concept of “weak
sustainability” as described by Franceschi and Kahn (2003).
More likely, a series of interrelated, complex factors work to limit
Audubon International’s ability to guarantee the presence
of large amount of suitable habitat on their Certified Gold golf
courses. These might include, but are not limited to: the developer’s
program goals, construction realities, management practices, a conservation
focus on other species of wildlife, the relative conservation potential
of each individual site, and the rigidity of Audubon International’s
own ranking system. Regardless of the reasons for their shortcomings,
the integrity of Audubon International’s Signature Sanctuary
Program is in question because they have failed to significantly
contribute, despite their assertion to the contrary, to the sustainability
of wading bird populations - an important segment of Florida’s
natural capital.
Further potential research on this topic should
include point count data. A comparison of bird response to Audubon
vs. non-Audubon courses
would be a worthwhile investigation. Also interesting would be
a further analysis of the energetic cost to wading birds that
choose
golf course wetlands for foraging sites when very little potential
foraging area actually exists on the course. It is possible that
some golf course wetlands act as an ecological trap to foraging
wading birds, and increased awareness of this potential hazard
would
be very beneficial. Another interesting future study would be to
assess the public’s reaction to the name ‘Audubon’
and what qualities are associated with this name. I think further
analysis of Audubon International’s use of the name, especially
in an ethical context, is warranted considering the results of
this
study.
This study analyzed a series of indicators
at the micro and macro scale that influence the suitability of
wading bird foraging habitat.
The primary importance of this study is in providing awareness
of the disconnect between image and reality for Audubon International
certification of golf courses. While their certification process
was found to be lacking in terms of the narrow focus of wading
bird
foraging habitat, the results of this study demonstrate that further
research into wildlife habitat provided by Audubon International
programs is warranted. While the sustainable development movement
continues to grow in popularity, its variant offspring should
be
critically analyzed in order to help avoid a future of decreased
returns from natural capital. Furthermore, landscape architecture
practitioners can help ensure an authentically sustainable future
by refusing to be satisfied with the mere image of sustainability
since future generations will likely require a built environment
that does not sacrifice the earth’s natural resources,
which include wildlife populations.
|
|
