Impact of Golf Courses on Cultural Landscapes

Impact of golf courses on cultural landscapes

By Ole R. Sandberg, Helena Nordh and Mari S. Tveit Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)

Popular Scientific Articles - STERF, February 2015 Abstract Golf has become increasingly popular in Scandinavia over the last decades, and the number of golf courses have increased manifold. As golf courses occupy large areas, often in highly populated regions, it is important to understand and predict the landscape impact of establishment of golf courses.

In this study we assess the visual impact of eight Scandinavian golf courses on the cultural landscape. The impact of golf course establishment was assessed regarding four visual themes; coherence with the surrounding landscape, openness, variation and stewardship on site.

Results show that establishment of golf courses do not necessarily change the visual landscape character of the cultural landscape context. Relatively few changes were found when assessing coherence of the golf courses with the surrounding landscape. The impact was more substantial regarding the visual landscape character within the golf courses, although for most of the attributes only small or moderate changes were identified. The most substantial impact was found for stewardship. The establishment of the golf course made the landscape more managed, accessible, and historic elements more visible. As stewardship has been found to be preferred in landscape preference studies, this seems to be compatible with the aim of multifunctional golf courses.

FACTS

Project name: ”Public access and preservation of cultural landscapes and Sources of finance: cultural heritage elements on golf courses” Scandinavian turf grass and environmental research This article presents the landscape- and cultural heritage foundation (STERF). part of the study. The aspect of public access on golf courses Dept. of landscape architecture and spatial planning, is to be presented in a later article. Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU).

Project period: Contact persons: 2010-2013 Ole R. Sandberg, professor emeritus, [email protected] Places of study: Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland Helena Nordh, associate professor, [email protected] Aim of the project: To study the impact golf courses have on cultural landscapes Mari S. Tveit, professor, and historic elements. [email protected]

A short version of the results: Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial The construction of golf courses has made only small chan- Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences ges to the visual character of the cultural landscapes. Only Box 5003, N-1432 Aas small or moderate landscape changes were identified within the golf courses. A high degree of stewardship on the golf courses made the greatest visual impact.

Cover photo: Tungdalsvöllur golf course, Iceland (Isafjordur), year of origin 1985, 9 holes, 12 ha.

2 Oppegård golf course, Norway (Oslo), year of origin 1986, 18 holes, 70ha.

Introduction

Over the last 20 years the number ration, 2002). Many golf courses paying careful attention to people’s of golf courses in Norway, Sweden, have been established in near urban perception of landscapes (Council Denmark and Iceland has increased areas, as well as in other attractive of Europe, 2003). Current urba- dramatically by 57% , from 553 in areas in rural settings. These are nisation processes have led to a 1995 to 868 in 2014 (Norwegian areas of importance to people’s growth in the proportion of the Golf Federation, 2015). Golf has everyday life, both as visual back- population living in urban areas become a popular sport with large drops and as potential recreational causing pressure on near-urban parts of the population. The Nor- areas. It is therefore of interest both land-use (Antrop, 2004). The high wegian Golf Federation (NGF) is to local planning authorities, local pressure on peri-urban landscapes currently the third largest sports residents and to the Scandinavian creates challenges for planners federation in Norway with 122 Golf Federations to understand and and policy-makers responsible for 000 members and over 185 golf predict the landscape impact of managing landscapes to the benefit clubs (Norwegian Golf Federation, establishment of golf courses. of different stakeholders, interests 2013). and values. The European Landscape Conven- Golf courses occupy large areas. tion highlights everyday landscapes As golf courses are both large and A standard 18 hole golf course and their importance for people. located in areas frequently obser- covers approximately 50 to 100 According to the Convention such ved and visited by people, there hectares (Norwegian Golf Fede- landscapes should be managed, is a need to assess and predict the

3 Vestfold golf course, Norway (Tønsberg), year of origin 1956, 18 holes, 80 ha.

visual impact of different types key aspects of visual landscapes the larger landscape context, as of golf courses. The demand for important to people’s landscape well as the visual landscape charac- tools to assess golf courses comes perception and preferences. These ter within the area covered by the both from the planning and policy are stewardship, naturalness, course. However, as only around perspective as well as from within coherence, disturbance, openness, 40% of the golf course is used for the golf community. Assessments complexity, historicity, imageabi- the game, there are great possibili- of golf courses should both encom- lity and ephemera, which together ties for taking other landscape inte- pass the golfers’ preferences and describe the visual landscape rests into account in the remaining designs suitable for the game, as character. Each of these key as- 60% of the golf course. well as public preferences and the pects are presented with landscape visual impact for people not invol- attributes and can be measured to There are examples of nature ved in playing golf. monitor or assess changes in the reserves established in these areas, visual landscape expression. as well as pasture for farm animals, Visual landscapes and people’s cultural heritage sites, recreational perception have been extensively When new golf courses are built, areas, marshes, forest, heaths and studied, and research has identified they will in most cases create a other nature types important for a range of different visual aspects visual impact changing the cultural biodiversity. With conscious ma- important to people’s landscape landscape in context and content. nagement aiming at encompassing experience. Tveit et al. (2006) and Establishment of a golf course can several landscape interests and va- Ode et al. (2008) identified nine alter both the visual character of lues, golf courses can be valuable

4 Delsjö golf course, Sweden (Gothenburg), year of origin 1962, 18 holes, 80 ha.

also beyond the game. Research explicit goals for multifunctional (2006) and Ode et al (2008) as a has been conducted to improve golf golf courses (Scandinavian Turf- starting point we address the visual course management for biodiversi- grass and Environment Research impact of golf course establishment ty and in terms of use of fertilisers Foundation, 2011). According to and discuss how such impact can and pesticides, aiming at minimi- STERF, multifunctional golf cour- change with different management sing environmental impact (Term- ses can play an important part in regimes and careful consideration an, 1997; Green & Marshall, 1987; reaching the environmental targets by greenkeepers. Tanner & Gange, 2005; Kohler et in Scandinavian countries, as well al., 2004; Scandinavian Turfgrass as improving people’s health and and Environment Research Foun- quality of life in near urban areas dation, 2013). However, the visual where many golf courses are loca- impact of golf courses has not yet ted (Scandinavian Turfgrass and been addressed in research. Under- Environment Research Foundation, standing how people perceive and 2013). appreciate visual landscape change related to golf courses can make As a contribution towards multi- these large areas more attractive functional golf courses this study also for non-golfers. The Scandi- aim to assess the visual impact of navian Turfgrass and Environment golf course establishments. Using Research Foundation (STERF) has the framework from Tveit et al

5 Method

Choice of golf courses

Eight golf courses in four Scandi- navian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland) were chosen, two from each country. Four were located in proximity to a city or the countries capitals, the other four were located in the country- side, see figures 1-2.

All golf courses were surrounded by natural or agricultural land and five of them also by housing esta- tes. Seven golf courses were 18- hole courses and one was a 9-hole course. The courses are representa- tive for Scandinavian golf courses when it comes to size, landscape setting and golf course design. Alt- hough they are all at a similar alti- tude and near the coast, we expect that golf courses on higher grounds inland will give similar results if investigated. Further studies should though be conducted.

For photos and facts about the golf courses see photos in this article:

Cover: Tungdalsvöllur GC, Iceland Page 3: Oppegård GC, Norway Page 4: Vestfold GC, Norway Page 5: Delsjö GC, Sweden Page 8: Ullared-Fjädje GC, Sweden Page 9: Smørum GC, Denmark Page 12: Korpa GC, Iceland Page 14: Ledreborg GC, Denmark

Figures. 1 and 2. Maps showing the location of the golf courses.

6 Landscape Themes Attributes Evaluations/Measures 0 4 Topography Different Similar On and outside the golf course Coherence with Lower ground vegetation Different Similar the surrounding landscape Bushes and trees Different Similar Topography Hilly Flat Openness Lower ground vegetation High Low Bushes and trees Dense Sparce Topography Uniform Complex On the golf course Variaion Lower ground vegetation Uniform Complex Bushes and trees Uniform Complex Seasonal changes Few Many Lower ground vegetation Unmanaged Managed Stewardship Bushes and trees Unmanaged Managed Roads, paths Unmanaged Managed Historic, elements Unmanaged Managed

Table 1. An overview of the attributes and assessments.

Field protocol and procedure

Based on the framework from Ode roundings. Three attributes were on topography meant a hilly golf et al (2008) and Tveit et al (2006) chosen to assess coherence: topo- course whereas four meant a flat. we developed a field protocol con- graphy, lower ground vegetation, For lower ground vegetation zero taining the four themes: coherence, bushes /trees. On the five-point meant high vegetation whereas openness, variation and steward- scale high values meant similar to four meant low vegetation. For ship, which are highly relevant in the surrounding landscape. bushes/trees, zero meant many/ this context, see table 1. We used a dense bushes or trees whereas four five-point scale (0-4) to assess the Openness – to what degree the meant sparse. impact of the golf course establish- golf course was perceived as open ment. or enclosed. Three attributes were Variation – the perception of chosen to assess openness: topo- complexity on the golf course. The Coherence – the golf course in graphy, lower ground vegetation, attributes chosen were: topography, relation to the surrounding lands- bushes /trees. High values on the lower ground vegetation, bushes/ cape, assessing whether the course five-point scale meant high degree trees and seasonal changes. On is similar or different from its sur- of openness. This means that zero the five-point scale, a low value

7 Ullared-Fjädje colf course, Sweden (Falkenberg), year of origin 1991, 18 holes, 75 ha.

on topography meant a uniform ground vegetation, bushes/trees, ro- the golf course was built. The lat- landscape; it could either be a flat ads/paths and historic elements. In ter part was based on information or a hilly landscape. A high value Ode et al 2008 and Tveit et al 2006 from either the informant or from on topography meant a complex historicity is treated as a separate historic literature. Note that the landscape with both hilly and flat key aspect. But in the context of informant was not asked about the areas. Low values on lower ground golf courses this is very much landscape change, but the situation vegetation and bushes/trees meant related to stewardship. On the scale prior to the golf course was built little variation in vegetation, while from zero to four low values meant and the existing situation. The field high values meant varied/complex absence of management. protocol was transformed to an ex- vegetation. Low values on seasonal cel sheet and perceived landscape changes meant few visible seaso- Registrations were made in field changes were calculated (existing nal changes, whereas high values and performed by one researcher situation minus prior situation). meant many visible changes such and an informant (a person with To illustrate the direction of the as ice on ponds in winter time or local knowledge of the golf course change on each attribute a plus or many deciduous trees with yellow such as the green keeper or a repre- minus symbol were added in front leaves in the autumn. sent from the golf federation). To of the value. assess how the establishment of the Stewardship - management on the golf courses had changed the lands- golf course. The choice of indi- cape, the same protocol was also cators was: management of lower used to register the situation before

8 Smørum golf course, Denmark (Copenhagen), year of origin 1993, 27 holes, 190 ha.

9 3,0 1,0 4,0 2,0 1,0 4,0 2,0 3,0 0,5 1,0 2,5 0,0 2,0 3,0 1,5 3,0 3,0 1,5 2,5 1,0 0,0 2,0 3,0 1,5 1,5 1,0 2,5 1,5 2,0 2,0 3,0 1,5 change ‐ 4 Max 4 Stewardship ‐ 40 0,00,0 3,0 1,0 0,01,02,0 4,0 0,0 3,0 3,0 0,0 4,0 0,50,0 2,0 3,5 0,5 2,01,50,5 3,0 4,0 0,5 0,0 2,0 0,0 3,0 1,00,0 2,5 3,0 0,5 3,5 1,50,0 3,0 1,0 2,5 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,00,0 3,0 2,02,5 3,0 2,0 3,5 0,0 4,0 2,0 3,0 1,0 2,5 1,0 3,5 0,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 3,5 Before After Total 0 0 0 0 1,5 1,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 0,0 1,0 2,5 0,5 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,5 0,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 1,5 0,5 change ‐ 1, ‐ 1, ‐ 0,5 ‐ 0,5 ‐ 1, ‐ 1, ‐ 1, 0 ‐ 1, 0 ‐ 0,5 ‐ 4 Max 40 Varietion ‐ 40 1,01,5 2,5 0,5 1,5 3,0 2,02,5 1,5 2,0 3,53,01,0 3,5 3,5 2,0 2,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 1,00,5 2,0 0,0 3,0 0,5 0,5 0,5 2,0 2,5 2,5 2,5 3,0 2,0 0,51,02,5 1,0 3,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 2,5 1,0 0,5 3,0 1,0 3,5 2,5 2,5 1,0 0,5 2,0 3,5 1,0 3,0 3,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 Before After Total 0 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,5 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,5 1,5 0,5 1,0 0,0 1,5 1,0 change ‐ 2, ‐ 0,5 ‐ 0,5 ‐ 0,5 ‐ 1, ‐ 0,5 ‐ 4 Max 40 Openness ‐ 40 3,5 1,5 1,01,52,0 1,0 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,0 2,03,5 2,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,51,5 2,5 2,01,0 2,5 1,0 2,5 2,0 2,0 2,5 2,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 2,5 2,0 3,5 1,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 3,5 2,5 3,0 2,5 3,5 3,5 2,0 1,5 Before After Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 change ‐ 2, ‐ 2, ‐ 2,5 ‐ 2, ‐ 2, ‐ 1, ‐ 2, ‐ 0,5 ‐ 1,5 ‐ 2, ‐ 0,5 ‐ 0,5 ‐ 1, ‐ 1, ‐ 1, ‐ 1, ‐ 0,5 ‐ 1, ‐ 4 Max 40 Coherence 3,5 1,5 3,5 1,0 3,5 1,5 4,0 2,0 4,0 2,0 4,0 4,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 4,04,0 3,5 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,5 2,0 4,03,0 2,0 2,5 3,5 2,5 4,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 3,5 3,0 0 ‐ 40 Before After Total course Isafjordur course Isafjordur course Isafjordur course Isafjordur 1,0 1,5 course Isafjordur 4,0 4,0 course Isafjordur 2,0 1,5 course course Falkenberg course Falkenberg course Falkenberg 3,5 2,5 course Falkenberg 4,0 2,0 course Falkenberg 3,5 3,5 course Falkenberg Gøteborg golf golf golf golf golf golf Golf course Roskilde course Roskilde course Roskilde course Roskilde course Roskilde course Roskilde course Oslo course Oslo course Oslo course Oslo course Oslo course Oslo golf golf golf golf golf golf course København course København course København course København course København course København course Tønsberg course Tønsberg course Tønsberg course Tønsberg course Tønsberg course Tønsberg course course Gøteborg course Gøteborg course Gøteborg course Gøteborg course Gøteborg course Reykjavik course Reykjavik course Reykjavik course Reykjavik course Reykjavik course Reykjavik golf golf golf golf golf golf golf golf golf golf golf golf Tungudalsvöllur Tungudalsvöllur Oppegård golf Vestfold Delsjö Smørum golf Ledreborg golf Korpa golf Smørum golf Ledreborg golf Korpa golf Ullared ‐ Flädje Ullared ‐ Flädje Tungudalsvöllur Vestfold Delsjö Oppegård golf Ledreborg golf Korpa golf Smørum golf Smørum golf Ledreborg golf Korpa golf Delsjö Ledreborg golf Tungudalsvöllur Oppegård golf Korpa golf Vestfold Delsjö Tungudalsvöllur Oppegård golf Vestfold Ullared ‐ Flädje Smørum golf Ledreborg golf Korpa golf Tungudalsvöllur Oppegård golf Vestfold Delsjö Ullared ‐ Flädje Smørum golf Delsjö Ullared ‐ Flädje Ullared ‐ Flädje Oppegård golf Vestfold s y change and paths elements Historic Roads, Seasonal Topograph Lower ground vegetation Bushes trees Attributes

Table 2. Results from the registrations in the field.

10 Results and discussion

The results provide an overview of the magnitude of landscape change resulting from golf course establishment as well as information about how the establishment of the golf course changed the different aspects of the visual landscape character. The method addressed both the golf course in relation to the surrounding landscape and the visual expression of the golf course itself.

The golf courses and their context

As table 2 shows, we revealed When assessing the vegetation, 2011), golf course establishment rather limited changes in the cohe- the differences between the golf often involve introduction of tree rence of the larger landscape con- courses and the surroundings were and bush species not previously at text resulting from the golf course more substantial. The results show the site to enhance the game. This establishment. In other words it is that the lower ground vegetation can lead to lower perceived cohe- possible to design golf courses that is less similar in the present situa- rence with the surroundings. are experienced as part of the sur- tion than before the golf course rounding environment rather than was established. For example, at According to landscape aesthetic interrupting it. It is important to Korpa, most of the area was used theory coherence is an important underline that the changes describe for grazing cattle before the golf aspect of visual landscape quality similarity between the course and course was built. Now, the areas in cultural landscapes (Kuiper, the surroundings, not coherence on used for golf play consist of low 2000; Strumse, 1994; Bell, 1999; the golf course itself. cut grass. Hence, the perceived Ode et al., 2008). Lack of cohe- difference was identified as higher rence will often be perceived as When assessing coherence of the after golf course establishment than disturbance (Tveit et al., 2006). landscape we looked at topography before. When it comes to higher The small to moderate changes in lower ground vegetation and bus- vegetation, bushes and trees, the the coherence registered, mostly hes/trees. As can be seen in table same pattern of small to moderate because of differences in vegeta- two, most golf courses were not changes towards less coherence tion between the golf courses and perceived different from the sur- was identified. The vegetation on the surrounding environment, may roundings in terms of topography. the course was after golf course be quite apparent, and for some ex- This can be a result of good design. establishment less similar to the perienced as negative. To diminish Instead of changing the existing surrounding vegetation. Although the risk of golf courses as being landscape when establishing the consideration is being taken in golf a disturbing element in the lands- golf course, the sites in our study course management to use spe- cape it is important to use existing had mainly adapted the existing cies suitable to the natural con- topography and species in the golf topography. text (Scandinavian Turfgrass and course establishment. Environment Research Foundation,

11 Korpa golf course, Iceland (Reykjavik), year of origin 1981, 18 holes, 80 ha.

Visual landscape character on golf courses

The results reveal some changes which is explained by the range of Openness on the golf course in the visual landscape character different landscape contexts these The results revealed only minor within the area defined as golf golf courses have been established differences in openness from the course. Within the golf courses in. The same was found regarding transition to golf course. The the study included assessments of the theme of landscape variation landscapes that were perceived as openness, variation and steward- prior to golf course establishment, open before the golf course, were ship. Related to these three key as some courses were established mostly still perceived as such, and aspects of visual landscape charac- in very complex environments and vice versa. The changes detected ter, we can see that the eight golf other in rather homogenous set- were connected to changes in the courses had varying visual cha- tings. On the aspect of stewardship, vegetation rather than topography. racter to begin with. The openness most cases revealed very little ma- Looking in specific at change in prior to construction varied greatly, nagement prior to the golf course. amount of bushes and trees we

12 found smaller changes in both course in play. The roughs however rical elements more visible to the directions. An explanation to this have great possibility for variation, public. Such visibility increases the is that open sites (i.e. farmland) which is also highlighted within the readability from a lay people’s per- tend to be planted with new bushes sport itself (Scandinavian Turf- spective and increases the public’s and trees while enclosed sites (i.e. grass and Environment Research possibility for appreciation and forests) tend to be opened up for Foundation, 2011). Some degree understanding of such elements play. The largest change could be of complexity has generally been (Jerpåsen & Tveit, 2014). Prior found at Korpa in Reykjavik where found favourable in preference to the golf course establishments the construction of a golf course theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) many historical elements were resulted in an increase in bushes and should be an aim on multi- hidden in the landscape, unpercei- and trees. functional golf courses, as it also vable to the public. The golf course favourable to biodiversity (Tanner management reveals the elements As areas in play on the golf course & Gange, 2005). to the public. As the network of are very extensively managed, , roads and paths is also strengthe- these tend to be opened up, keep- Stewardship on the golf course ned and managed, the public gets ing very low, trimmed vegetation. The highest impact of the esta- increased access, both to the golf In many cases bushes and trees are blishment of the golf courses was, course as a recreational area and to introduced, for decorative purposes not surprisingly, found related to the heritage elements. On the golf or as obstacles in the game. Such stewardship. In all but one of the courses stewardship is necessary decorative elements can enhance eight cases, the stewardship was for the game, but as mentioned in the aesthetic experience also for higher on the golf course than in the introduction this is true for only non-golfers. The areas not played the prior landscape. The change in 40% of the golf course, the rest has are, however, often less extensively stewardship, see table 2, is expec- a lower degree of management and managed, resulting in a less open ted on lower ground vegetation, can be experienced as rather wild expression of these areas. As these since areas in play require a high or unmanaged. are the areas with less restrictions level of management. However, for access for the public, it may large changes can also be found be worth paying attention to great on the other attributes. Bushes and changes in openness in these areas, trees are generally better maintai- as such changes, in particularly ned as are paths, roads and historic related to reforestation in some elements. As an example, in both cases have been found to be percei- Vestfold golf course near Tønsberg ved less favourable by the public and Smørum golf center near Co- (Hunziker, 1995; Karjalainen & penhagen, burial mounds are main- Komulainen, 1998). tained and signposted to become visible and accessible. On Korpa Variation on the golf course golf course near Reykjavik, the old The variation related to vegetation dairy farm building is restored and on the golf courses varied between used as a club house. Stewardship the golf courses both prior to and is generally found to have posi- after golf course establishment. tive impact on public preferences The assessment of changes in (Nassauer, 1992; Sheppard, 2001). lower ground vegetation showed Establishment of the golf course a decline in variation, probably could hence result in higher visual because this is mainly on the quality related to stewardship. extensively managed parts of the Management makes many histo-

13 Ledreborg golf course, Denmark (Roskilde), year of origin 2005, 18 holes, 170 ha.

Conclusions

This study has revealed that the grass, but also more visible his- and tested on other golf courses. impact of golf course establish- torical objects and an increase in Being aware of the visual impact of ment is generally more substantial paths/roads that could be used for golf courses on the cultural lands- regarding the visual landscape cha- recreational use. cape, can make the golf courses racter within the golf courses, than more attractive as recreational between the golf course and the The method used in this study can areas for the public, which in turn surrounding landscape. For most of be helpful both for the day to day can be beneficial to public health the attributes only small or mode- management of the golf course it- and well-being. rate changes were identified, except self, and as a checklist of important regarding stewardship which was visual characteristics linked to higher after golf course establish- landscape attributes for use in plan- ment in all cases. Higher steward- ning of new golf courses. However, ship did not only mean more cut the method has to be developed

14 References

Antrop, M. 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 9-26. Bell, S. 1999. Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process, London, E & FN Spon. Council of Europe 2003. Presentation of the European Landscape Convention. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Green, B. H. & Marshall, I. C. 1987. An assessment of the role of golf courses in Kent, England, in protecting wildlife and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 143-154. Hunziker, M. 1995. The Spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands - perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning, 31, 399-410. Jerpåsen, G. & Tveit, M. S. 2014. Safeguarding cultural heritage in the urban fringe - the role of legibility. Landscape Research, 39 (4), 433-454. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature; A Psychological Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Karjalainen, E. & Komulainen, M. 1998. Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 79-90. Kohler, E. A., Poole, V. L., Reicher, Z. J. & Turco, R. F. 2004. Nutrient, metal, and pesticide removal during storm and nonstorm events by a constructed wetland on an urban golf course. Ecological Engineering, 23, 285-298. Kuiper, J. 2000. A checklist approach to evaluate the contribution of organic farms to landscape quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 143-156. Nassauer, J. I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology, 6, 239-250. Norwegian Golf Federation. 2002. Golf, Arealbruk og -Forbruk. Temaskriv fra Norges Golfforbund (http://www.golfforbundet.no/assets/files/klubb/anlegg/golf_-_arealbruk_og_-forbruk.pdf.) (Accessed Mars 2013.) Norwegian Golf Federation 2011. Årsrapport Norges Golfforbund 2011. Oslo: Norwegian Golf Federation. Norwegian Golf Federation. 2013. About the Norwegian Golf Federation [Online]. Available: (www.golfforbundet.no) (Accessed Mars 2013.) Ode, Å., Tveit, M. & Fry, G. 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33, 89-118. Scandinavian Turfgrass and Environment Research Foundation, S. 2011. Multifunctional Golfcourses - An Underutilised Resource. Danderyd: STERF. Scandinavian Turfgrass and Environment Research Foundation, S. 2013. Multifunctional Golf Facilities (www.sterf.golf.se) (Accessed Mars 2013.) Sheppard, S. R. J. 2001. Beyond Visual Resource Management: Emerging Theories of an Ecological Aesthetic and Visible Stewardship. Sheppard, S. R. J. & Harshaw, H. W. (eds.) Forests and landscapes - linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics, IUFRO Researh Series. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Strumse, E. 1994. Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 293-303. Tanner, R. A. & Gange, A. C. 2005. Effects of golf courses on local biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71, 137-146. Terman, M. R. 1997. Natural links: naturalistic golf courses as wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning, 38, 183-197. Tveit, M., Ode, Å. & Fry, G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31, 229-256. Tveit, M. S. 2005. Nature Meets Aesthetics On Cultural Grounds: A Multidisciplinary Study Of Grave Mounds In Norway. Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G. & Opdam, P. (Eds.) From landscape research to landscape planning: aspects of integration, education and application. Dordrecht: Springer.