New Podcast Episode: Golf Courses as Land Use in Edmonton’s River Valley with Arshdeep Kaur and Damian Collins
Edmonton’s iconic river valley is home to multiple golf courses, but are these exclusive green spaces the best use of this land? How do golf courses intersect with biodiversity preservation and water conservation?
Learn about golf courses as land use in Edmonton with the University of Alberta’s Arshdeep Kaur and Damian Collins.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CHECK OUT THESE RESOURCES:
Thank you, Arshdeep and Damian, for making this episode possible.
-------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Host: Hello and welcome back to the Land Use Podcast. I'm your host, Aysha Wu with the Alberta Land Institute. Today we'll be discussing a study done by researchers here at the University of Alberta on golf courses as land use in Edmonton.
Before we get into that, I would like to acknowledge that the Alberta Land Institute is based out of the University of Alberta's North Campus. Which is located on Treaty 6 territory and respects the histories, languages and cultures of First Nations, Métis, Inuit and all first peoples of Canada, whose presence continues to enrich our vibrant community.
Edmonton is home to Canada's largest stretch of urban parks in our North Saskatchewan River Valley. The River Valley contains over 160 kilometers of maintained pathways for public use, but there are large sections of the River Valley taken up by golf courses that are only accessible to a fraction of the population. These golf courses are the focus of a study conducted by Arshdeep Kaur and Damian Collins here at the university. Welcome Arshdeep and Damian. Could you introduce yourselves?
Damian: Sure, I'm Damian Collins and I'm a professor of human geography here at the University of Alberta.
Arshdeep: My name is Arshdeep Kaur, and I'm an undergrad student here at the University of Alberta. And I'm currently in the fourth year doing a thesis based degree and my research focuses on the intersection of urban planning, sustainability, and land use types.
Host: Great. Thank you so much. So where did your interest in golf as land use come from?
Damian: Well, it started out with the closure of Hawrelak Park, actually. And so as a lot of Edmontonians will know, the park is closed for three years for rehabilitation. And it was, you know, one of the most popular parks in Edmonton. [It] would draw tens of thousands of people a year to enjoy its facilities. And that's off limits to us right now but right next door to that, that park is Mayfield Golf Course and Mayfield Golf Course is actually on publicly owned municipal land, but it's a private Country Club with only 475 members.
And so we were kind of really interested in that tension between a park on the one hand, and a pretty exclusive golf course on the other. We weren't the only people to note that there was that tension. For example, Michael Janz before he was a city councillor was asking some pretty serious questions about the appropriateness of using municipal land for a private country club.
Host: Right. Okay. So then what was the goal of your research?
Arshdeep: The goal of the research was to answer 2 primary questions. First, we wanted to quantify the spatial extent of all the golf courses in Edmonton, what is their area as well. And then the second was to understand how much space in the River Valley is occupied by the golf courses, and we wanted to know the percentage of that. And the third was we did a case study on municipally owned golf courses.
Damian: Yeah. So the River Valley was a real focus for us and I think you know, as people who live in Edmonton, we think of the River Valley as one of the jewels of the city. It's the largest continuous urban green space in North America as a lot of people know, and it's our claim to fame here in Edmonton, one of several, I guess. But we were really interested in unpacking what are the land uses that actually make up the River Valley? It's called a river of green but some of those green spaces are more accessible than others.
Host: Okay, so then how did you go about conducting the research?
Arshdeep: Well, we went into the bylaws, we read any of the bylaws that mentioned the word golf. We found out those and went through those and many news articles that were already there. And then the third was we went through a lot of scholarship on this topic and then we basically just did the analysis using GIS software. And we found out our findings from basically that software and then also verified those findings with Google Earth imagery and other resources.
Host: Available and what were some of the findings?
Arshdeep: Yeah. So some of the findings from our initial spatial analysis, we found out that there are nineteen golf courses in Edmonton. And thirteen of them are privately owned, six are publicly municipally owned. So when they use terms like municipally owned, it means that the land is public and the municipality the city is operating them. And out of those six, three are still the municipalities operating and then three are further leased out or outsourced to private parties.
And for the second question that how much of the River Valley space is utilized by golf courses, well, there are 11 golf courses just in the River Valley and two further in its ravines. So they take up 20 per cent of the River Valley. So one-fifth of river valley is just an exclusive playground for golf.
Host: That's a lot!
Arshdeep: Yes!
Damian: So as Arshdeep mentioned, you know there is 19 golf courses, which certainly indicates that golf is, you know, somewhat popular summer sport here in the city. For the most part, we wanted to focus in on the six that are on public land. You know, the thirteen that are on private land, that's kind of a private business decision and there's not necessarily a lot that the city or other people could do about those decisions.
But really I think we kind of zoomed in pretty quickly on the fact that there's six golf courses that are on public land and you know, if we think about what the purpose of that land is, it's to benefit Edmontonians, right? It's held in the public trust to benefit all of us who live in the city. And one of the things that the analysis found out was that those six public courses total 364 hectares. And what does that look like? Well, we're here on the University of Alberta's North Campus and it's 89 hectares. So those municipal golf courses are about four times the size of the North Campus of the U of A.
Host: Wow, that's a lot of land.
Damian: That's a lot of land. That's a lot of land set aside for one particular sport and you know it's pretty well known that that golf is quite a unique sport amongst all the different recreational opportunities because it's just so land intensive if you compare it with, you know, basketball, tennis, squash, cricket, soccer. You know, it's unique in its demands for large areas of land and that's kind of reflected in the fact that, you know, as Arshdeep mentioned, 20 per cent of the river valley and ravine system is dedicated just to that one sport.
Host: And you mentioned it being land intensive, but what are some of the drawbacks to golf as land use?
Arshdeep: Yes, there are so many disadvantages to having golf courses from first when the land is cleared to make a golf course or like trees are cut down, there's habitat loss and then biodiversity loss there, and also the regular upkeep of golf courses requires large amounts of water.
There have been a lot of studies that have tried to quantify the water usage. So there was one study in Los Cabos, Mexico, where there are 13 golf courses in a very arid area, and they take up the water supply more than the entire area’s agriculture would. And there is a similar study done in Ontario. They did some interesting statistics and also some predictive analysis like how much of the water will be used up if the temperature was to rise a degree higher, it was much warmer and then and if climate change continues, how much water will the golf courses require. And it was a huge number that they will require, much more water to operate.
And the third environmental implication is also that the regular upkeep of the grass requires a lot of pesticides to be used. And sometimes those pesticides might impact non-target organisms as well. So there might be a lot of ecosystem changes, long term ecosystem changes that might happen or occur due to the long term use of pesticides on the golf courses.
Damian: Yeah, I think what Ashdeep picked up on there is that golf courses are a green space and they often look very green and they have a certain appeal, but they're also, in some ways, quite artificial because there's this huge water usage and then all the applications of pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides that are necessary to maintain that very manicured and artificial type of green space.
Host: Right, and water use is huge right now with the drought conditions and water restrictions from the last couple of years. So when you said you were looking at the bylaws, is that the kind of thing you were looking into?
Arshdeep: Well, we found out that there are, despite so much land use that golf courses take up, there aren't many specifications or requirements for them to how the land will be utilized and what will be the rules of its operation, what golf courses are. There weren't many definitions, and furthermore there are no reports that are mandatory for golf courses to report how much water they use and how much pesticide offload that they are doing into the streams.
Damian: Yeah. Because golf courses are very lightly regulated, they're barely mentioned in the City of Edmonton's bylaws. One of the consequences of that is that there's not a lot of public information on what the environmental effects of golf courses are.
Host: Okay. So with that said, how can municipalities use this research to move forward?
Damian: Yeah, so I think, in the first case, it's really helpful for municipalities to be aware of how much land is devoted to this one particular sport, to acknowledge that during golf season, which is sort of six or seven months here in Edmonton, that land is only available for people playing golf. It's off limits to other members of the public. So there's a potential for social exclusion that goes with that. And I think that municipalities need to think seriously about whether this is the best and most appropriate use of public land.
As Arshdeep mentioned, you know, there's 13 golf courses that are on private land and, to a large extent, that's going to meet a lot of the demand, so then it really becomes a question for municipalities of the best use of that publicly owned land.
Arshdeep: And I think there is a report done by KPMG Consultants for the City of Edmonton outsourcing of golf courses. It was done in 2021 and basically because many of the golf courses operate in losses the cities mostly look into other sources of income that could be generated from outsourcing of golf courses. And they found out that Rundle Golf Course was operating in so much loss that the other two golf courses, Riverside and Victoria, needed to be joined to offset its cost.
And even on the first page of the report they mentioned similarly that while the city strives to be highly responsive to communities needs, but it risks over-delivering programming
to those who can easily access those services from the market. So it's not the issue of demand that we are meeting here, because if you look at the six municipally owned golf courses, they're clustered around the city center. For example, Mayfair and Victoria are just two kilometers apart, and Riverside and Highlands are five kilometres apart. So they're really clustered together and I trust our city planners and policymakers to rethink how golf courses are woven into the urban fabric of our city. Perhaps there is better land uses.
Host: Yeah, cause that's pretty prime high demand land. What else could that land be used for?
Damian: Yeah. So absolutely the, you know, although the Edmonton River Valley is a very large area obviously, the part that's in the centre of the city has the highest levels of use, the most demand for a very wide variety of recreational opportunities. Informally things like you know walking, running, cycling, and also more dedicated facilities for tennis, football, baseball, cricket.
So you know, there's a lot of recreational demand right in the centre of the city. And that's also where there are five golf courses. So it's not hard to imagine that some of those golf courses could be repurposed for more general public use. And I think, you know, in particular more park-like spaces, more trails, but potentially you could also add soccer fields, tennis courts, you know, other sorts of recreational opportunities and still have huge areas of land left over for just general park space.
Arshdeep: Even other cities are exploring what to do with so many golf courses. For example, even in the city of Toronto, there was an urban planner there that wanted to turn the golf courses into urban green spaces, which are open access for all people, instead of having places which are just exclusive for some people.
Damian: And there's a unique seasonal aspect to that in Edmonton because unlike in Vancouver, for example, our golf season is pretty much just half the year. When the golf course is shut down for the season in October, generally they are open for the public throughout the winter and so you can go cross country skiing, snowshoeing, maybe skating if there's ponds and things like that. So we do have some public access to these spaces in winter, but during the six or seven months when the golf courses are open, that's when the public loses that access. And of course, those months are from, say, you know, April through to October, also when most people want to be outside. So we have the most demand for recreational space in the summer but we also have less access because all of that land is closed off and used exclusively for the participants in one sport.
Host: Absolutely. And like you were saying, with the closure of Hawrelak Park, that is land that people could potentially be using if it wasn't a golf course.
Damian: Yeah, absolutely. It's not hard to imagine that, you know, Mayfair could fill that need for public recreation and public green space.
Host: For sure. So do you have any specific bylaw recommendations for municipalities?
Arshdeep: Well, certainly we were – since most of the golf courses do not report their water usage or pesticide offloading to the water streams, so perhaps a stronger bylaw that makes it mandatory for them to report that and also defines what recreational land use is, and within that what golf courses are and their rules for operation. I think that would be really beneficial.
Damian: Yeah and I think one of the ways it would be beneficial is it would just make a lot more information available to the general public, but also to the decision makers who ultimately have responsibility for the municipally owned land in the city.
Host: Yeah, for sure. What other areas within this topic are in need of a bit more research?
Arshdeep: Yes, certainly. So we did leave hints in a paper about the historical development of golf courses and how it was tied to real estate development. So it would be fascinating to explore the impacts of golf courses and property values. So even if doing a preliminary analysis around the Highlands Golf course or even the land around the golf courses, the property values tend to be higher than if we move farther away.
And the second recommendation for research would be to do a GBA plus analysis of recreational facilities just to find out if the golf courses or the recreation facilities are distributed equitably amongst all the residents. And I think there can be all sorts of interesting things that could be done if we are able to get the water usage analysis, we could do some predictive analysis for warmer temperatures, for colder temperatures, there could be so many things that could be done from that and from the analysis of the water – of the pesticides offload into the water.
Damian: And one of the things that Arshdeep kind of hinted at there is that historically, golf has been considered a relatively exclusive type of sport. There's a cost barrier to playing, obviously, whether it's membership of a Country Club, which could be tens of thousands of dollars, or whether it's green fees for a public course which might be $40 or $50 dollars per game. But those cost barriers definitely mean that golf has tended to skew towards a richer demographic.
And so, you know, a GBA plus analysis, gender based analysis plus, would perhaps potentially unpack what sorts of people benefit the most from golf courses and alternatively, who doesn't really benefit from them. And I'd say too, that one point that Arsheep was kind of hinting at there is just the opportunity costs. We have all this public land used for golf, as a result, it can't be used for other things. You know, hypothetically, what other benefits might we be able to gain if we were able to use that land for something different.
Host: Absolutely. So kind of just to conclude here, are there any final thoughts that either of you have or is there anything else that you'd like to mention that we didn't get around to talking about?
Damian: I think that cities around Canada and around North America are beginning to think seriously about the future of golf courses as an urban land use. The general trend has been like demand is falling. Over time there's fewer people who have the interest in playing golf. So that kind of creates some economic pressures. And secondly, I think just an increasing awareness that this land is, you know, off limits to the public, but also off limits to other types of usage, which could be perhaps more equitable and more democratic.
Arshdeep: And especially when their leases are tied to several decades into the future. So we have our land tied to just one sort of sport. For example, Royal Mayfair is extended to 2069 February. So for those years there will be just golf in that, and city plan expects the population to rise. So it just, there's a lot of opportunity cost if we just tie land to specific uses for longer periods of time and especially when those lease agreements are not available publicly.
Damian: Yeah, yeah. And, you know, we're absolutely supportive of recreation. And I think all of us would value a city where there's as many recreational opportunities as possible. And golf certainly is one form of recreation, but we do see a way in which it's monopolizing a lot of land and in particular, a lot of public land in the city. And that might not really be the best use of that land for the purposes of the public at large.
Host: Great. Well, thank you so much Arshdeep and Damian for joining me. I really appreciate it.
Damian: You're welcome. Thank you.
Host: And to our listeners, I hope you enjoyed this month's episode. Arshdeep and Damian’s study is linked in the description if you'd like to find out more. If you did enjoy the episode, you can leave a like, a comment and subscribe to stay up to date with all of our latest podcast episodes. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, X and LinkedIn, and sign up for our newsletter on albertalandinstitute.ca. Thank you so much for tuning in to the Land Use podcast.