Ref: 0153 Using benchmarking techniques for water use management in golf courses across Southeast Spain

Transcription

1 Ref: 0153 Using benchmarking techniques for water use management in golf courses across Southeast Spain Melián-Navarro, Amparo, Dep. Economía Agroambiental, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Orihuela (Alicante) (Spain) De Miguel-Gómez, Mª Dolores, Dep. Economía de la Empresa, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Cartagena (Murcia) (Spain) Ruiz-Canales, Antonio, Dep. Ingeniería, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Orihuela (Alicante) (Spain) Abstract courses are a prime example of sport and leisure facilities with a huge thirst for water resources. In arid and semi-arid regions such as southeast Spain, efficient use of water is a priority for ensuring good management of these regions scare water supplies. Although in Spain the total land area set aside for golf courses is relatively low, these facilities place a great strain on water supplies because of the need for intensive watering of the playing surface. The volume of water allocated to this use often exceeds that employed for agricultural purposes, bringing under scrutiny these facilities significant environmental impact. Faced with a balancing act between the large demand on water resources and limited water availability with the environmental issues this brings to the fore, stakeholders are forced to consider the need to control water use and promote the efficiency of the facilities that use these water resources, while minimising environmental impact. This applies in equal measure to agricultural uses such as irrigation for crops, and, in the case of the present study, golf courses, due to the watering and sprinkler systems that maintain the quality of their turf. Benchmarking, by employing management indicators, is a suitable tool to determine the efficiency of these facilities. With this in mind, in 2001 the International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) defined a set of indicators to apply benchmarking techniques to the regulation of irrigation and drainage in agriculture. The current study applies benchmarking techniques to golf courses, which, despite their non-agricultural nature, have a high economic impact owing to the large income they generate from golf-related tourism. courses are placing a great demand on the water supply of a region where this resource is scarce; namely, the province of Alicante in southeast Spain. In this study, we apply these techniques to four golf courses in Alicante, with the aim of assessing their efficiency and productivity. To accomplish this main objective, we address the following three specific aims. 1) To adapt techniques and define a set of management indicators to assess water use and its productivity in golf courses, taking the indicators set out by IPTRID and previous research as a basis. 2) To characterise and analyse the situation between 2010 and 2012 in four golf courses with similar features in Alicante (Spain). 3) To compare and assess the water use management and productivity of these four golf courses, according to their performance in terms of water use efficiency, identifying possible corrective measures where necessary. The results show that golf courses water use productivity is greater than productivity in agricultural settings, as is, largely, their demand for water; a demand that is partially unmet in all the golf courses that feature in the study. Overall, water use efficiency is adequate, although there is room for improvement in one of the courses. Keywords: benchmarking, efficiency, golf courses, water

2 1. Introduction courses are a prime example of sport and leisure facilities with a huge thirst for water resources. In arid and semi-arid regions such as southeast Spain, efficient use of water is a priority for ensuring good management of these regions scare water supplies. Although in Spain the total land area set aside for golf courses is relatively low, these facilities place a great strain on water supplies because of the need for intensive watering of the playing surface. The volume of water allocated to this use often exceeds that employed for agricultural purposes, bringing under scrutiny these facilities significant environmental impact. Faced with a balancing act between the large demand on water resources and limited water availability with the environmental issues this brings to the fore, stakeholders are forced to consider the need to control water use and promote the efficiency of the facilities that use these water resources, while minimising environmental impact. This applies in equal measure to agricultural uses such as irrigation for crops, and, in the case of the present study, golf courses, due to the watering and sprinkler systems that maintain the quality of their turf. Benchmarking, by employing management indicators, is a suitable tool to determine the efficiency of these facilities. In this study, we apply these techniques to four golf courses in Alicante, with the aim of assessing their efficiency and productivity. To accomplish this main objective, we address the following three specific aims. 1) To adapt techniques and define a set of management indicators to assess water use and its productivity in golf courses, taking the indicators set out by IPTRID and previous research as a basis. 2) To characterise and analyse the situation between 2010 and 2012 in four golf courses with similar features in Alicante (Spain). 3) To compare and assess the water use management and productivity of these four golf courses, according to their performance in terms of water use efficiency, identifying possible corrective measures where necessary. 2. Materials and methods Benchmarking, by employing management indicators, is a suitable tool to determine the efficiency of these facilities. With this in mind, in 2001 the International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) defined a set of indicators to apply benchmarking techniques to the regulation of irrigation and drainage in agriculture. Conellan (2004) and Rodriguez-Díaz et al. (2011), developed these methodologies for the application in golf courses Calculation of performance indicators For this purpose, some of the used water management indicators were based on the developed by International Program for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) (Malano and Burton, 2001). These IPTRID performance indicators were adapted to golf courses, taking into account the varied objectives of sports turf irrigation management. In this case, the authors worked with the Spanish Association of Greenkeepers, who provided the adequate experience to identify the most important domains and the most appropriate indicators (Rodríguez-Díaz et al, 2011). To ensure consistency, a detailed definition of each indicator and a protocol for calculating their values were defined (Table 1). Table 1: Indicator Water use descriptors Indicator Definition Data specifications water received or acquired by 1. Total annual volume the golf course from each source of irrigation water (including wastewater treatment supply received by the golf course (m 3 plants, desalination plants, ) irrigation water districts, groundwater and others) Measured at the interface between the irrigation suppliers or water source and the golf course Quantified as the volume of water from each water source

3 2. Total annual volume of irrigation water applied (m 3 ) 3. Total annual volume of water that comes into the system (m 3 ) 4. Annual irrigation water supply per unit irrigated area (m 3 ha -1 ) 5. Annual irrigation water applied per unit irrigated area (m 3 ha -1 ) 6. Annual irrigation water applied per hole (m 3 per hole) 7. Delivery efficiency 8. Annual relative water supply (RWS) 9. Annual relative irrigation supply (RIS) 10. Water delivery capacity 11. Irrigated area in greens and tees and total irrigated area ratio (%) 12. Maximum potential soil moisture deficit (PSMD max ) water applied by the irrigation system to meet crop water requirements water received by the golf course plus the effective rainfall Total volume of irrigation water received Total irrigated area Total volume of irrigation water applied Total irrigated area Total volume of irrigation water applied Number of irrigated holes Total volume of irrigation water applied Total volume of water received Total volume of water comes into the system Total annual volume of crop water demand Total annual volume of water received Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand Maximum pump capacity Peak irrigation water demand Irrigated area in greens and tees Total irrigated area Peak value of the monthly cumulative water balance calculated from PSMDi=PSMDi-1+ETi-Pi Measured with flowmeter in the main pipe at the pump station Otherwise estimated by the irrigation software from sprinkler application times Rainfall data obtained from a weather station located in the golf course; effective rainfall estimated from CROPWAT Total irrigated area is the area intended to be irrigated by the sprinklers (excludes overthrow) Number of irrigated holes Total annual volume of crop water demand is the total volume of water demanded by the crop to meet evapotranspiration demand (ETc) Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand is the total annual volume of irrigation water required by the crop less effective rainfall (ETc effective rainfall) Maximum pump capacity of the irrigation system is the maximum discharge capacity of the pump system Peak irrigation water demand is the peak crop irrigation water requirement for a period of time Evapotranspiration and rainfall data from Productivity indicators measure the benefit or value of the water used (table 3), in which there are important differences between the agricultural and golf sectors. In agriculture, the objective is to maximize crop production where returns from irrigation can be estimated from the incremental increase in yield and price. In contrast, golf course irrigation aims to keep the grass in optimum condition for bounce and playability and for aesthetic appeal, in order to attract players and increase revenue (Bastug and Buyuktas, 2003; Jordan et al., 2003; Weatherhead et al., 2006). Direct benefit to the golf course comes from increases in member fees, green fees and visitor expenditure in the associated facilities such as the clubhouse Study area and description case studies (golf courses) The four golf courses (GC) included in the study are located in the Southeast of Spain. The total surface of all the golf courses is very similar. All of the golf courses include 18 holes. Total surface is 45 ha in all of them, except in the GC 4, where the total surface is 55 ha. The irrigated area varies from 38 ha to 45 ha. The number of members of the staff is

4 about 30 or 40. Only in the GC 1 there are 62 peoples. The specific information in every golf course is presented in table 3. This study was made between 2010 and All of the golf courses have a similar irrigation system, where wastewater is supplied from an external pressure pipeline network. Only in the GC 2 an additional water source (10% of the total water sources) is included. In this course, groundwater is pumped from the aquifer to the reservoirs of the irrigation system. In all the studied golf courses, water is pumped from the low elevation zones to the hydrants of the irrigation network. The average pump capacity is 220 m 3 h -1, with the exceptions of GC 3 (165 m 3 h -1 ) and GC 4 (280 m 3 h -1 ). Several centrifuge vertical axis pumps (among 3 or 4 units) are installed in parallel and provide the required pressure depending on the demand of the network. In every group of pumps there is one unit where a frequency adjuster adapts the required pressure in the network to the pumping pressure. Depending of the required pressure in the network, one or several pumps can operate simultaneously. In GC 4 there are two irrigation networks. One of the networks is for the greens and tees and the other network is for fairways and roughs. The sprinklers of the irrigation systems in all of the golf courses are commanded from an automatic to estimate turf grass water requirements. This station sends the data by means of wire to the central control in a PC located in the main office. In this PC, a commercial SCADA hardware and software system that decides which zone of the golf course has to be irrigated depending of the data of the is included. Moreover, this SCADA system is connected with the electro valves of grouped sprinklers (named satellites) and the pumping station. Table 3: coruse descriptors course 1 course 2 course 3 course 4 Soil Greens and Greens and Greens and Greens and tees: USGA tees: USGA tees: 30 cm tees: USGA spec with 15 cm spec with 15 cm gravel and 50 spec with 15 cm gravel and 30 gravel and 30 cm sand. gravel and 30 cm sand. cm sand. Fairways and cm sand. Fairways and Fairways and roughs: clay soil Fairways and roughs: 18% roughs: clay roughs: 62% sand, 44% silt loam soil and 38% clay. sand, 20% silt and 18% clay Size 45 ha (irrigated area 40 ha) 18 holes 45 ha (irrigated area 40 ha) 18 holes 45 ha (irrigated area 45 ha) 18 holes 55 ha (irrigated area 38 ha) 18 holes Water source Main Drainage system Wastewater (100%) Yes (fishbone in shape). There is no devices for measuring drained water Main Wastewater (90%) Secondary groundwater (10%) Yes (fishbone in shape). There is no devices for measuring drained water Main Wastewater (100%) Yes (fishbone in shape). There is no devices for measuring drained water Main Wastewater (100%) Yes (fishbone in shape). There is no devices for measuring drained water Pump capacity 4 pumps: 220 m 3 h -1 7 pumps: 220 m 3 h -1 3 pumps: 165 m 3 h -1 7 pumps: 280 m 3 h -1 Infrastructure 1633 sprinklers 1250 sprinklers 1136 sprinklers 1449 sprinklers with have with have with have with have pressure regulator pressure regulator pressure regulator pressure regulator and electrovalves and electrovalves and electrovalves and electrovalves Rain-Bird Eagle Rain-Bird Eagle Rain-Bird 700 and Rain-Bird Eagle 730 and and 750, , 550, 700 and 750 Rain-Bird 47 and 51 Central control Central control Central control Central control

5 Reservoirs (capacity) Turfgrass varieties Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic 7 reservoirs 2 reservoirs and 5 lakes (110,000 1 regulating (53,500 m 3 ) five lakes m 3 ) reservoir and 7 (161,000 m 3 ) lakes (96,795 m 3 ) Greens and Greens and Green: Agrostis antigreens: antigreens: Stolonifera L.cv L- Agrostis Agrostis 93 (11,95 m2, Greens: Agrostis Stolonifera L.cv Stolonifera L.cv 3.02%). Stolonifera L.cv Cato (36,600 m 2, Penncross in Antegreens: L93 (11,000 m %). greens, cv Sea Agrostis 2.59%). Fairways, roughs Side in antigreens Stolonifera L.cv and tees: (20,000 m2, Seaside II (13,630 Antigreen and Bermuda 4.44%) m 2, 3,59%). fairways: (Cynodon Tees, fairways Tees: Bermuda Paspalum Dactylon L. cv and Roughs: (Cynodon Vaginatum SW. Jasckpot and cv Bermuda Dactylon L.cv (155,000 m 2 Princess (363,400 (Cynodon Princess 77) 36.47%). m 2, 90.85%), Dactilon L.cv (13,590 m 2, Roughts and tees: completed with Persicum) 3.58%). Bermuda Ray Grass. (430,000 m 2, Fairways and (Cynodon 95.56%) rough: Bermuda Dactylon L. x (Cynodon Cynodon Dactylon L. cv Transvaalensis Tifway 419 B.D.) (259,000 m2 (341,285 m 2, 60.94%) 89.81%) Staff Results and Discussions All the performance indicators were calculated and the results are shown in table 3 and 4. The average water consumption for the four courses was 300,000 m 3 yr -1. This is lower than the average values reported by Priego et al. (2006) in Andalucia (Spain). According to this author, the average consumption in a typical 18-hole golf course was estimated at 320,000 m 3 yr -1. Specifically, in GC1 and GC4 the value of water consumption is 296,000 m 3 yr -1. GC3 has an excesive water consumption (440,000 m 3 yr -1 ) compared to the other 3 golf courses and the average value cited by Priego. All this indicates that it is necessary to supply a high additional water quantity for covering the needs of the turf grass of the studied golf courses. The low values of rainfall in this zone for the studied period (471 mm yr -1 in GC1, mm yr -1 in GC2, mm yr -1 in GC3 and mm yr -1 in GC4) and a high evapotranspiration levels (1,134 mm yr -1 in GC1, 1, mm yr -1 in GC2, 1, mm yr -1 in GC3 and 1,081.1 mm yr -1 in GC4) support this idea. For the turf grass, reference evapotranspiration and crop evapotranspiration is the same parameter. This climate data has been obtained from the s of every golf course during the experimental period. The corresponding values of irrigation water applied, and water that comes into the system for the studied courses are the same as the water consumption values previously cited. The irrigation systems of the studied courses do not have excessive problems with delivery efficiency (the worse value is for GC2). The obtained data shows no high values of water loss in the pipeline systems in any of the studied courses. Only GC3 includes an estimated percentage of water loss of 25% (the value of delivery efficiency is 75%). Water consumption per unit irrigated area is between 6,000 and 8,900 m 3 ha -1, which is similar to some irrigated fruit trees (citrics) in the region (Ruiz Canales et al., 2011). The highest water consumption per unit irrigated area value is registered (8, m 3 ha -1 ) in GC3. Comparing irrigation consumption per hole, this is 59.9% higher in GC3 than in the worst user (GC2). One reason for this is that the irrigated area is higher on GC3, with 45 ha of the course irrigated averaging 2.5 ha per hole. The water supply per unit irrigated area is similar in both cases.

6 According to the water use management in the irrigation system, the RIS, ratio between the irrigation water applied and the net water requirements (turf grass water requirements minus rainfall), values show that turf grass irrigation needs have not been covered adequately (all of them are smaller than 1). Likewise, low values of RWS (ratio between the water available to the turf, irrigation plus rainfall, and crop water requirements) have been registered. Consequently deficit irrigation has been applied. During summer seasons in the four studied golf courses the water supply guarantee values have been low. For this reason the studied golf courses are irrigated below their water needs. This idea is reinforced by the high values of maximum potential soil moisture deficit (PSMDmax). Table 3: Water use indicators: Results. course 1 course 2 course 3 course 4 Water use indicators water supply received by the golf course (m 3 ) 296, , , ,693,00 water applied (m 3 ) 269, , , , Total annual volume of water that comes into the system (m 3 ) 391, , , , Annual irrigation water supply per unit irrigated area (m 3 ha -1 ) 7, , , , Annual irrigation water applied per unit irrigated area (m 3 ha -1 ) 6, , , , Annual irrigation water applied per hole (m 3 per hole) 1, , , , Delivery efficiency (%) Annual relative water supply (RWS) Annual relative irrigation supply (RIS) Water delivery capacity (%) Irrigated area in greens and tees and total irrigated area ratio (%) Maximum potential soil moisture deficit (PSMD max ) The maximum number of rounds played per year was 56,573 (GC1) and the minimum was 36,000 (GC4). The golf course s revenues are estimated from the number of rounds and the green fee (which ranges from 80 in GC1 to in the others). The highest total revenue value is found in GC3 (2,564, ). However, the higest profitability is for GC1 because of its lower costs compared with GC3. This is confirmed by the indicators of revenue per unit irrigation water received by the golf course values and revenue per unit crop water demand, where the highest value is for the GC1 (7.59 and 8.36 m -3 respectively) (table 4). Table 4: Productivity efficiency indicators: Results. course 1 course 2 course 3 course 4 Number of rounds played per year 56,573 32,000 55,000 36,000 Total revenue ( ) 1,951, ,564, ,568, ,250, Revenue per unit irrigated area ( ha -1 ) 56,250 48, , , Revenue per unit irrigation water received by the golf course ( m -3 ) Revenue per unit crop water demand ( m -3 )

7 Green-fee price ( ) Conclusions The current study applies benchmarking techniques to golf courses. courses are placing a great demand on the water supply of a region where this resource is scarce; namely, the province of Alicante in southeast Spain. In this study, deficit irrigation is applied due to the lack of natural supply, incurring high water prices and insufficient irrigation scheduling. Because of the climatic conditions the irrigation is necessary during all the year. In general water use efficiency is adequate in golf course analysed, although there is room for improvement in one of the courses. More studies are needed but it presented here, may be useful to compare with others golf courses of similar characteristics in other territories. Water scarcity and costs requires an efficient use of resources and techniques of benchmarking and performance indicators are important tools. 5. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and the ERDF for their financial support under the GEAMED Project (AGL C02-01). 6. References Bastug R, & Buyuktas D. (2003). The effects of different irrigation levels applied in golf courses on some quality characteristics of turfgrass. Irrigation Science, 22, Connellan G. (2004). Performance Benchmarking of Turf and Landscape Irrigation Systems. Irrigation Australia Conference Proceedings. Sydney, Australia. Jordan JE, Whit RH, Vietor DM, Hale TC, Thomas JC, & Engelke MC. (2003). Effect of irrigation frequency on turf quality, shoot density, and root length density of five bentgrass cultivars. Crop Science, 43, Malano, H., & Burton, M. (2001). Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector. International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Priego R, Gomez-Lama M, & Recio JM. (2006). El golf y su entorno en Andalucía. Ed. Fudación Cajamar, Spain. Reyes A. (2007). Water use within the golf sector in the Southeast of Spain. MSc thesis, Cranfield University, UK. Richie WE, Green RL, Klein GJ, & Hartin JS. (2002). Tall fescue performance influenced by irrigation scheduling, cultivar and mowing height. Crop Science, 42, Rodríguez-Díaz, J. A., Weatherhead, E. K., García Morillo, J., & Knox, J. W. (2011). Benchmarking irrigation water use in golf courses - A case study in Spain. Irrigation and Drainage, 60(3), Ruiz Canales, A. Melián-Navarro, A., Molina-Martínez, J.M., Sacristán-Beltrí, E. & Puerto-Molina, H. (2011). Irrigation Scheduling Systems Based on Water Content Gauges for Citrus Trees - Some Data of Several Case Studies in the Southeast of Spain. VI International Symposium on Irrigation of Horticultural Crops. Acta Horticulturae, Volume 889: Weatherhead EK, Knox JW, de Vries TT, Ramsden S, Gibbons J, Arnell NW, Odoni N, Hiscock K, Sandhu C, Saich A, Conway D, Warwick C, Bharwani S, Hossell J, & Clemence B. (2006). Sustainable Water Resources: a Framework for Assessing Adaptation Options in

8 the Rural Sector, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 44 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UEA: Norwich, UK.