An investigation of the perceptions, motivations, and expectations of
sustainable golf course design and management among
golfers and course managers
Rebecca Guerriero
A thesis submitted to the Program in the Environment in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Arts
with Honors
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
April 2013
1
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Andrew Horning, for his expertise
and guidance throughout this project. Drew, your patience, encouragement, and never-ending
support have not only provided inspiration and motivation, but kept me on track and focused
throughout my research experience. Thank you for introducing me to the golfing community in
Ann Arbor and helping me navigate a path for my research – I truly could not have done this
without your commitment and guidance. A heartfelt thank you to Professor Bob Grese, my
faculty reader, for introducing me to the world of landscape architecture and encouraging me to
pursue the topic of my interest.
This thesis would not have been possible without the generous academic and financial
support from the University’s Honors Program and the Program in the Environment department.
I would like to extend a deep and sincere thank you to Dr. Timothy McKay and the inspiring
summer cohort I was lucky enough to work with during the summer of 2012. The peer
mentorship and camaraderie from such a lively group provided the network and support
necessary to execute this project. I also would like to acknowledge the hard work and guidance
of Jaime Langdon and Jason Duvall in the PitE office – without your calm words of advice, I
would probably still be convinced that I was never going to finish this thesis. Thank you for
keeping things in perspective and believing in the ambitious group of seniors this year.
I am especially grateful to the course superintendents, managers, and professionals who
took the time out of their busy schedules to accommodate my questions and curiosities. Craig
Moore, Mike Morris, Dan Lucas, Jim Bluck, Scott Spooner, and Dan Mausolf – thank you for
sharing your course with me at 4am and showing me the intricacies of maintaining a sustainable
golf course. Many thanks to course architect Mike DeVries, for his mentorship and willingness
to introduce a fellow Wolverine to some of Michigan’s finest courses.
The generosity of Brigid and Skip Pruss in Suttons Bay, Michigan, and Adam Fancher
and housemates in Marquette, Michigan, made my travels and research all the more comfortable
and enjoyable. Thank you for opening up your homes, hearts, and dining room tables to me as I
conducted my site visits.
Finally, this thesis would not have been feasible without the enduring love and support of
my family. Mom, thank you for letting me drive your car to the U.P. and showering me with
confidence and cookies throughout the process. Nick, thank you for spending long, late hours
with me working and offering endless words of encouragement. Dad, thank you for teaching me
what golf is really about – a lesson that I will never forget and continues to drive my passion for
the game. This thesis was inspired by your passion and commitment for the greatest game ever
played. To my friends – thank you for sharing in my successes and struggles and remaining a
constant source of support.
2
Abstract
There are approximately 16,000 golf courses in the United States that require and use
extensive resources to operate and maintain certain standards. These practices affect air, soil, and
water quality and touch upon environmental issues such as water conservation, pesticide runoff,
and excessive energy consumption. There has been a recent push among course personnel and
industry professionals for greater sustainable management practices, but the expectations and
motivations of golfers are not as readily available. This research responds to the uncertain golf
community to show that sustainable golf course design and management can retain the integrity
of the game, if not provide for a more satisfying experience. This paper highlights the triple
bottom line of golf courses, or the “3Es,” that each course should consider in its daily practices:
the environment, the economy, and the enjoyment of the golfers. Surveys taken at six
environmentally-forward courses throughout the state of Michigan assessed the opinions of
golfers related to sustainable course management and their enjoyment of the game. Analysis
found that golfers do care about the environment in which they play and prefer beautiful, wellmaintained, challenging environments. Golfers were concerned with rising costs to play,
shrinking golfer populations, and water conservation. A significant number of golfers linked
these challenges to the “3Es” and expressed interest in pursuing a more environmentally and
economically viable agenda for the golf industry. Findings from the interviews show that golfers
generally do appreciate, care, and even hope for more sustainable design and management
practices at their courses.
Introduction
Golf is a limited but lucrative market. There are approximately 60 million golfers
worldwide, and the creation of golf courses is one of the most rapidly growing types of land
development (Barton 2008). In the past forty years, the golf business has flourished into a $76
billion dollar business (Mead 2009). In Europe there are about 5,000 courses and the United
States boasts an impressive 16,000 courses, roughly the landmass of Delaware (Deford 2008).
The state of Michigan has 956 active golf courses, the second highest number in the United
States (Mead 2009). The American Society of Golf Course Architects estimates a 10% increase
in additional land necessary to accommodate the growth and design of longer courses, which will
raise greens fees by 17% (Shackleford 2005). Golf has become synonymous with development,
which is a shift far from the origins of the game.
Golf courses originated in Scotland over 600 years ago as links courses. Links were tracts
of sandy, treeless, and undulating land near the sea that were designed by natural processes
(USGA 2009). These courses triumphed naturalness and strategy; golfers played the variety of
terrain that nature offered and were at the mercy of harsh, unpredictable weather conditions. Golf
was a game against the elements that provided a never-ending challenge. The evolution of golf
courses has deviated far from this, involving increased bulldozing and intensive resource input to
produce the compelling look and atmosphere of a lush, green and beautifully manicured golf
course. This idealized golf course is landscaped to perfection, watered daily, and intended to be a
visually and sensually pleasing experience.
While this process of golf course development may provide a visually appealing tract of
land, modern course design has its share of criticism. In his book The Future of Golf, golf
commentator Geoff Shackleford finds modern course design to be “a volatile mix of clashing
egos, miscommunication, artistic beliefs, maintainability, length, and politics” (2005). Many of
the design and maintenance practices golf courses have embraced in recent decades are not
3
economically or environmentally sustainable, particularly in those climates where water
availability and conservation are prevalent issues. The cost to create and maintain the ideal
modern golf course is significant both in terms of financial operating expense and long-term
environmental degradation. Air, water, and soil quality are all affected by golf course design and
maintenance practices. These practices cost an 18-hole course approximately $584,500 to $1.2
million annually with an average of 75 acres of turf being maintained for an eighteen-hole
American course (Shackleford 2005). Shackelford relates the current golfer’s expectation to be
“part Disneyland, part cemetery, part corporate statement, and part game board,” as well as being
a masterpiece of landscape design (2005).
Due to environmental and economic pressures, golf courses are again embracing the
“natural” qualities of the landscape that respect the natural cycles of grass instead of expecting
grounds that resemble the artificial carpets of miniature golf courses. Factors such as water
scarcity, the toxicity of chemicals and pesticides, state environmental regulations, and the
growing popularity of environmental certification programs have begun to push golf courses
towards more sustainable designs and practices (Barton 2008). These influences can be seen in a
growing interest of golfers towards the unique, rugged courses that mirror the natural links of the
British Isles, where the game of golf began (Barton 2008). Natural design and management or
“going native,” according to Shackleford, has begun to gain momentum at courses throughout
the country, most notably the renowned courses Pinehurst, Pine Valley, and Pacific Dunes
(Shackleford 2005). This movement champions the use of indigenous landscaping with native
flora and grasses to provide the most natural, local setting as possible. Michigan-based golf
course consultant Tom Mead considers the trend toward natural design and native grassing to be
the “most sustainable in terms of playability, cost, and environmental impact” (2009).
The golf industry has developed the definition of sustainability as “the integration of
environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and economic vitality as a critical and neverending goal” (Golf 20/20 2012). The golf industry embraces sustainability as “meeting the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(Golf Course Superintendents of Association of America (GCSAA)).
For the golf industry, this means adopting financially stable business models and
environmentally conscious management standards to provide the best, most enjoyable experience
for current and future golfers. According to Mead, we have the “knowledge, technology, and
budgets to design, construct, and maintain sustainable golf facilities right now” (2009). If golf
course design and management refocuses on the unique aspects of a region’s climate, topography,
and vegetation, while utilizing an economically and environmentally efficient maintenance
agenda, a more diversified, fun, and challenging network of golf courses could be created and
thrive. Golfers would not have the same experience from east to west coast nor have the same
expectation of every course. This could revitalize an excitement, appreciation, and demand for
the game, not to mention the benefit to the environment.
This final shift relies upon the expectations and motivations of the golfer. The question of
what golfers expect and how they will react to environmentally focused design and management
has been central to many discussions about these trends in the golf industry. The USGA report
Golf’s Use of Water emphasizes the need for turf conditions that require fewer resources but
acknowledges the uncertainty as to how golfers will react to lower quality and less visually
appealing roughs that require fewer resources. Shackleford notes that the native golf trend can
only flourish if golfers can be sold on the benefits to their local environment and personal
investment (2005).
4
This missing link is the driver of my research. I looked at a variety of courses throughout
the state of Michigan to see how and if taking advantage of local landscapes characteristics and
conditions is not only ecologically sustainable but also an economically viable option that
enhances golfer enjoyment and creates regionally-distinct courses. My work seeks to build upon
a 2008 Golf Digest survey that found “a clear majority appreciates the unique landscape of golf
course architecture.” Analyzing the expectations of golfers and course managers related to
sustainable courses is the first step in determining how to best incorporate the environment and
the economy of golf course management to provide the best playing experience for those who
value the sport of golf. If golfers can be persuaded that what they value most about golf courses
is directly aligned with sustainable management, then a case can be made that no course should
hesitate to shift toward more environmentally and economically viable practices.
My research seeks to show that sustainable golf course design and management can
retain the integrity of the game, if not provide for a more satisfying experience. Golfers and the
golf industry can be persuaded – or are already persuaded – in a sustainable direction and thus
benefit from that shift. I take a systems perspective to study strategic alignment for sustainable
courses across what I dub the “3E’s” of golf:
1. Environment: A course must be designed and managed to respect its native landscape,
local flora and fauna, and the related ecosystems services through proper irrigation, turf
grass maintenance, pesticide use, and other management tactics.
2. Economy: In order to invest in an environmentally sustainable future, there must be an
economic incentive for the course, and it must be affordable for golfers to play.
3. Enjoyment: Golfers are the driving force behind the sport. Golfers must enjoy and be
motivated to play sustainable courses for courses to implement such strategies. If there is
no proven and expressed demand, a course will not actively seek out more sustainable
operations.
I hypothesize that a successful course in the future will have to be centered in the middle
of this triangle, as shown through the interconnectedness of these three principles in the
Discussion section. Significant research and attention has been given to best maintenance and
design practices, ranging from irrigation systems to fertilizer and pesticide use. This thesis draws
upon that body of knowledge to better assess what the impacts, benefits, and perceptions of
golfers are related to furthering sustainable practices in the golfing industry. In-depth interviews
with various sectors of the golf industry, data analysis, and qualitative assessments intend to fill a
gap in the literature to provide a different, much-needed perspective on the role of sustainability
in the world of golf.
Golf Courses and the Environment: From Links to Modern Markets
Historical Scottish Links
Golf’s main psychological challenge – the “defeat of some seemingly overwhelming
landscap” lies in the heart of Scottish links courses (DeVries 1994). Links courses were defined
by the natural forces of wind, changes in the tide, and animal grazing and migration that brought
in seeds for turf and scrapes for bunkers (Doak 1992). Because of nature’s designing hand, there
is tremendous diversity of golf courses in Great Britain, which allows the golfer to experience an
endless spectrum of golf course design.
The earliest Scottish links were designed entirely by nature and consisted of tall,
windswept dunes, river estuaries, and hollows with grass growth (Cornish and Whitten 1987).
Players had to strategize to avoid the rough, as this area was more difficult for play, sometimes
5
even impossible. Designers of early courses championed “4 iron rough,” describing a rough with
grass so tall and wild that only the longest club would suffice for an average ball lie (DeVries
1994, p.4).
Tom Doak, a revered golf course architect, summarizes the importance of Scottish links:
1. these are the courses over which golf was invented and 2. they have withstood the test of time,
despite changes in almost all other aspects of the game (1992). The first golf course was
established at St. Andrews, Scotland over five hundred years ago and is still considered the
greatest golf course of all time for the “subtleties of its terrain and its curiously shifting winds”
(Shackleford 1997). The course evolved over several hundred years with very minimal input
from designing hands (Shackleford 2003).
Links courses champion the challenge that nature offers, which has lent to their
endurance despite improvements in technology and changes in golf course design over time.
The natural diversity and tenacity of the landscape is heralded as an enhancement to the game,
providing a variety of experiences and challenges to the golfer. This continues to inspire golfers
to pursue the challenge that links courses offer.
Modern Golf Courses
Course Design
Modern golf course design has the advantage of technology and no longer relies solely on
the capabilities of nature for definition. This has allowed once barren, infertile land to flourish as
beautiful golf courses. However, modern technology has also paved the way for bigger, more
difficult courses that may overcompensate with excessive bulldozing, extreme maintenance
intensity, and overwatering of greens and fairway. These longer, over-conditioned courses
occupy more land, and take longer to play. For these reasons, there is a renewed shift toward
natural design.
The concept of natural design is rooted in a minimal approach, derived from an
understanding of and appreciation for natural processes, involving the least amount of
interference from man. It relies upon what the local topography and geography has to offer, such
as landforms, climate, water availability, and types of native vegetation, to shape the course. Dr.
Alister MacKenzie, a master of golf course architecture, believed that a course “should have
beautiful surroundings, and all the artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a
stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself” (DeVries 1994). This required the
incorporation of natural landforms with the native vegetation to integrate the golf course
naturally into the surrounding landscape.
According to Doak, one of the most enticing aspects of golf is the chance to be
surrounded by the beauty of nature (1992). The greatest courses, therefore, enhance this beauty
by including the natural place into course design. Mike DeVries, a golf course architect based
out of Traverse City, Michigan, has championed this as “Reactionary Design.” His philosophy
states, “Successful design is directly related to sustainable ecosystem planning and management”
(devriesdesigns.com). Nature should dictate the course design, and the topography should be the
major determinant in that. Courses with “infinite variety” challenge golfers by demanding a
heightened awareness of the landscape and lie of the course (DeVries 1994). Many wellestablished, revered golf courses are held in a higher esteem because of their one-of-a-kind
appearance (Barton 2008).
There is a clear tension between current expectations of course aesthetics and the
sustainability of golf courses in the future. Maintaining tournament conditions everyday is not
6
sustainable or realistic for a course, both in terms of environmental and economic feasibility. The
poster child of perfect design and highly maintained aesthetics is Augusta National Golf Club,
home of the Masters Tournament in Augusta, Georgia. The perfectly manicured greens are a
pristine, splendid shade of green that should have a Crayola crayon named after them. Economist
Thomas Friedman told Golf Digest, “…if everyone copies Augusta and makes their course
longer, tighter, softer and more carpeted, it will increase golf's environmental footprint. It takes
more water and fertilizer and mowers” (Schiffman 2009).
Augusta may be an exception to the rule, but as golfers watch this majestic course on
television, they wonder why their local 18 cannot be just as nice. The beauty of Augusta can
build up an unreasonable expectation in the minds of golfers, whether consciously or
subconsciously. Shackleford noted, “every region in the United States has its own unique native
flavor, and golf has ignored this in favor of imported looks that are not inherent to the local
environment” (2005). This contributes to the hurdle of implementing sustainable design and
management – if golfers expect what they see on television replicated at their local courses, how
can managers and superintendents push for a more sustainable agenda that may not deliver the
“greenest” (color-wise) results?
Environmental Trends and Best Practices
The creation of golf courses is one of the most rapidly growing types of land
development with over 16,000 courses in the United States (Barton 2008). Modern courses can
require and use extensive resources to operate and maintain certain aesthetic standards. Water
use – or scarcity – poses the greatest threat to course management (USGA 2009). In some parts
of the country, courses use exorbitant amounts of water to irrigate their landscapes. The United
States Golf Association (USGA) found that approximately 2.08 billion gallons of water are used
per day for irrigation in the U.S (2009). This varies by region, and some courses in the desert
consume as much water in a day as an American family uses in four years (Deford 2008). To
mitigate the threat of water scarcity, new irrigation technologies, drought tolerant grass varieties,
and best management practices have been developed and implemented. The switch to more
sustainable, low-input grass-types at just 50% of the courses in the United States could save
hundreds of billions of freshwater annually (Mead 2009).
DeVries noted back in 1994 that the application of man-made products, such as pesticides
and fungicides, is considered by the public to be environmentally unnecessary and unsafe. Over
time, the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA) asserted that modern
pesticides and fertilizers used properly to maintain a healthy golf course are considered safe
(2013). Each chemical product is tested an average of 120 times at a cost of $50 million before it
is permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (GCSAA 2013). Most pesticides have an
insignificant effect on the environment if applied correctly (USGA 2009). The development of
nonchemical alternatives and new grasses that require less spraying are part of the industry
initiative to ensure responsible, environmentally sound use of fertilizers and pesticides.
While courses are challenged by environmental resource use, and in some cases, scarcity,
golf courses can benefit the environment as functioning ecosystems. Courses create wildlife
habitat and movement corridors. Out-of-play areas provide food, water, and nesting areas for
animals that live on and around the course. Courses protect topsoil from water and wind erosion,
absorb and filter rain to groundwater, improve air quality through natural filtration and
sequestration, capture and cleanse runoff in urban areas, and discourage pests, such as ticks and
mosquitoes (USGA 2009). Golf courses also provide intrinsic aesthetic value, which improves
7
the community landscape and can help restore damaged landscapes. Friedman believes, “Golf
doesn't pave the world – it helps to green the world” (Schiffman 2009). Exposure to nature can
help reduce stress for golfers and community members (USGA 2009). DeVries even notes that
golf courses may be better for the environment than lawns in suburban neighborhoods that
overwater, over-seed, and do not contribute as profoundly to the natural habitat of the area (M.
DeVries, Personal Communication, 8/6/12).
Certification and management programs exist to encourage and support golf course
managers and superintendents as they strive for greater environmental accountability. More than
2,100 golf courses are registered as Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program Courses (USGA
2009). This program supports golf courses that protect and preserve the environment, improve
efficiency, and minimize potentially harmful impacts of maintenance operations (Audubon
International). The Michigan Turfgrass Environmental Stewardship Program recognizes the
importance of environmental sensitivity in the golf industry and aims to promote environmental
stewardship of the turfgrass industry and acknowledge environmental achievements (mitesp.org).
Many other programs work to advance and commend environmental efforts on golf courses, but
these were the two most prevalent programs at the courses surveyed.
Economics
The game of golf is a significant industry in its own right and contributes substantially to
the U.S. economy. The overall golf economy generates greater revenues than spectator sports
(baseball, hockey, football, etc.), performing arts, and other amusement and recreation industries
(skiing facilities, marinas, fitness centers, etc.) (Golf 20/20 2011). However, the industry has
experienced two recessions in the past decade and suffered declines in its profitability, number of
golfers, and annual rounds played.
In 2011, the U.S. golf industry generated $68.8 billion of goods and services, a
substantial drop from $79.5 billion in 2005 (Golf 20/20 2011). Golf’s overall economic impact
through core and enabled industries was $176.8 billion in 2011, declining from $195.1 billion in
2005 (Golf 20/20 2011). Over the past decade, the number of annual rounds played dropped
from 518 million to 475 million, and this number has been declining since 2006 (Yasuda 2012).
The number of players reached as high as 30 million in 2005, but this fell to 26.1 million in 2010,
the most recent year of a golfer census (Yasuda 2012). Most courses have experienced flat or
decreasing revenue of the past five years, which poses challenges for running and maintaining a
course at certain standards.
In order to survive in the future, courses need to attract golfers to increase revenue while
decreasing costs through operational efficiency. The shift to sustainable design and maintenance
provides an option for both. Sustainable practices, innovation, and change are not only good for
the environment, but also beneficial to the economic bottom line. Numerous opportunities
abound, from recycling water to mowing less to reduced areas of maintained turf (USGA 2009).
Minimizing energy, fertilizer, water, and equipment inputs will be financially efficient, providing
the course with more opportunities to maintain economic and environmental viability. Achieving
sustainability will save money and resources, and help to keep greens fees and cost to play down,
which will encourage more golfers to play the course. Golfers drive the market, and if the course
is too expensive to play, they will take their clubs elsewhere. Studies have found that Americans
abstain from playing golf for three main reasons: high green fees, excessive difficulty, and pace
of play – barriers that can be relieved through a more sustainable approach (Shackleford 2005).
Adopting a sustainably focused design and maintenance regime can bring relief to golfers’
8
pocketbooks, entice more golfers to play, help a course’s revenue, and ensure environmental
accountability for the course.
Research Design
Site Selection
Seven courses throughout the state of Michigan were chosen based on their natural
course design, environmentally forward maintenance and management practices, and the type of
player access available (a resort course, a private course, a semi-private course, a public course,
and a municipal course). For example, a municipal’s course clientele is much broader
socioeconomically and generally less serious and experienced at the game than a privately
owned course with a higher greens fee (C. Todd personal communication, 3/30/12). This
provides for a wide range of golf course maintenance practices, as demonstrated in Figure 2, and
a diverse golfer sample population.
The following courses were selected: Greywalls (semi-private), Marquette, Mi; Crystal
Downs Country Club (private), Frankfort, MI; Kingsley Club (invitation-only), Kingsley, MI;
Forest Dunes (resort club), Roscommon, MI; Leslie Park (municipal); Ann Arbor, MI and
Radrick Farms (semi-private), Ann Arbor, MI. Input from various faculty, advisors, and golf
industry experts provided guidance in selecting each course. I was not previously familiar with
any of the courses beyond name recognition.
Table 1. Course Characteristics
Source: Interviews with course superintendents, pros, and designers through on-site interviews.
Name
Type
Location
Course
Architect
Greywalls
Semiprivate
Private
Marquette, MI
InvitationOnly
Resort
Club
Municipal
Kingsley, MI
Mike
DeVries
Alister
MacKenzie
Mike
DeVries
Tom
Wieskopf
E. Lawrence
Packard
Semiprivate
Ann Arbor,
MI
Crystal
Downs
Kingsley
Club
Forest
Dunes
Leslie Park
Radrick
Farms
Frankfort, MI
Roscommon,
MI
Ann Arbor,
MI
Pete Dye
Rounds Played
per Year
(approx.)
50,000 (between
two courses)
N/A
Memberships
(approx.)
Certifications &
Educational Programs
600 members
5-7,000
200 members
Don’t advertise, noted
communication barrier
Certified Audubon
Cooperative Sanctuary
None
15,000
84 members
None
34,000
N/A
30,000
750 members;
open to fulltime University
of Michigan
employees and
their spouses,
degree-holding
candidates
from the
university, and
alumni
members
Michigan Turfgrass
Environmental Stewardship
Program, Certified Audubon
Cooperative Sanctuary
Michigan Turfgrass
Environmental Stewardship
Program, Community Partners
for Clean Streams,
Groundwater Guardian Green
Site, Washtenaw County
Pollution Prevention Program
300 members
9
Interview Process
Information was acquired predominantly through interviews, whether initiated through
personal contact, phone interviews, or email correspondence. Golfers, superintendents, course
managers, course pros, and any other willing or recommended personnel were interviewed at
each course to provide a perspective of motivations, expectations, and perceptions related to an
environmentally forward golf course. Investigative trips to each course took place from June
2012-September 2012. The interview process at each site followed a similar agenda.
Superintendents were interviewed in the early morning (4-6am) before the course was
open to the public. The superintendent provided a course tour and summary of the course’s
management and maintenance practices, course characteristics, and design features. This
contributed to the environmental assessment of different factors, such as grass type, tree cover,
bunker management, and water usage that influenced the course achieving an environmentally
forward status. For a summarization of the environmental characteristics at each course, see
Appendix A.
Course managers, pros, and designers were interviewed when available. They were asked
similar questions to the golfers and superintendents, as well as questions related to the changing
awareness and incentive of the golf industry related to sustainability. To further broaden my
assessment of each particular golf course’s relationship with the environment, supplemental
reading material in the form of pamphlets, reports, and historical documents were provided when
available at sites.
Golfers were randomly approached in the clubhouse, pro shop, or other designated area
and asked to participate in an informal interview (Appendix B). Often, the course pro or manager
would suggest a golfer or group of golfers that s/he thought would provide insightful or
supporting answers to my questions, but I did not target a certain demographic of golfers. All
interviewees were required to be 18 or older.
These informal interviews helped formulate an understanding of each golfer’s
background, experience, and thoughts on the future of sustainable golf in a more personal
manner. Interviews allowed golfers to relate their thoughts and anecdotes in a dialogue that
might not be as easily expressed in a written survey. The interview questions were purposefully
open-ended in order to allow the golfer freedom, depth, and honesty in his or her answer. Golfers
were asked a series of open-ended questions and then asked to rank their top two priorities from
a list of course characteristics. Interviews were recorded with permission of the golfer. A total of
64 golfers were interviewed across 7 courses.
The following number of interviews were conducted at each site:
 Greywalls – 20 golfers
 Forest Dunes – 4 golfers
 Crystal Downs – 15 golfers
 Kingsley – 10 golfers
 Radrick – 10 golfers
 Leslie – 5 golfers
Total: 64 golfers
Interviews with golf industry professionals and experts were also conducted. These
interviews typically took place over the phone and focused on what the golf industry is doing
currently to implement more sustainable practice, the challenges and successes of such initiatives,
and how the golf industry has reacted to such measures. All of these interviews compiled
10
provided a holistic, broad view of the golf course industry’s attitude toward the incorporation of
sustainability into golf course design and maintenance practices.
Variables
The dependent variable in this study is golfers’ use, enjoyment, and awareness of
sustainable, environmentally forward golf courses that capitalize on natural and localized course
design. This construct depends upon a much broader range of independent variables, which are
divided into two categories: individual characteristics and course characteristics.
Individual characteristics include golfer demographics: age group, gender, and playing
experience. A second aspect of individual characteristics is personal values of and concern for
the environment and sustainability in general. A golfer may think sustainable practices are
important even if s/he is unaware of their application in the sport of golf, and vice versa; a golfer
may have no regard for sustainable practices but still be concerned about environmental factors
related to the golf course. These individual characteristics were assessed through the open-ended
interview questions.
Course characteristics cover a wide range of qualities and were divided into five
categories:
1. Care and Conditions: This characteristic reflects most on a course’s
maintenance and management practices. It includes fertilizer and pesticide
cover and use, green speed, pin placement, turf and fairway conditions (type,
color, distance, firmness, height, divot repairs, definition of edges), rough
height and management, and bunker conditions (i.e. raked, rough, mowed).
2. Environment: This refers specifically to the natural environment (not
management or practices) and what a course does to educate golfers on its
surrounding ecosystem. Factors include naturescapes, the natural aesthetic,
tree cover, leaf cover, wildlife diversity, invasive species quantity, water cover,
low-impact practices, buffer zones, noise pollution (as a result of nearness to
cities and towns) vegetation type, climate of the course, and region of the
course.
3. Design: This factor speaks to the architecture of the course, the principles
behind the design, bunker height and placement, amount and height of rough,
layout and walkability, course length and size, and challenge and uniqueness
of the course.
4. Cost: This factor assesses the economic ease or burden of golfers to play a
course, based on cost to play and membership requirement
5. Convenience: This is a fairly broad category. It could mean the proximity of
the course to home/work, the pace of play, the reputation of the course,
additional amenities offered, or the level of difficulty of the course.
Data Analysis
Upon completion, interviews were transcribed and coded using the program
HyperResearch. This program allows a cross-case comparison of the interviews through the
11
identification of various code words. The codes were applied to words, series of words, or
paragraphs that corresponded with the code definitions. A series of code words were used:









Challenge: how hard the course is to play, how exciting and stimulating, may signify
variety and diversity of course lies, may signify that golfer will come back again, etc.
Care and Conditions: knowledge of course care and upkeep, appreciation for certain
course standards, and expectation for a certain type of course maintenance, appearance,
and playability both physically and visually
Green: applies to an abstract sustainability definition; also denotes color of grass or
implication of dry, burnt grass; to track the different definitions of “green” in golf.
Environmental concern and awareness: explicitly states or implies that he cares about
the environment in terms of golf courses, values the environment, aware of
environmental problems, generally will signify that the person is in-tune and has inherent
interest in the environment related to the golf course
Natural design aesthetic and appreciation: awareness and enjoyment of natural design
principles of the course, its visual appearance, and how it plays as a natural course
Environment: appreciation of the physical outdoors, being outside, and enjoying nature
Sustainable: factors of a sustainable golf course in the future
Cost and greens fees: the price of a round of golf, concerns or observations of cost of
game
Water: awareness of water scarcity related to golf courses, denotes personal concern for
the environment
Once all the interviews were coded for various properties, statistics and frequency reports
were conducted to provide quantitative support for the qualitative information (Appendix C).
The quantitative data was used to quantify the greatest concerns of the golfers and filter how
explicit golfers’ concern for the environment was related to their actual expressed expectations
and concerns.
The transcriptions were assessed, evaluated, and compared to draw the most accurate
conclusions of each golfer’s expectations related to the characteristics of the course he or she
was playing. Applying both quantitative and qualitative data, I was able to paint a picture to
portray golfers’ reactions, expectations, and future considerations related to the ever-present shift
toward sustainability in the golf industry.
Limitations
All the courses selected demonstrated an interest in forwarding sustainable activity and
practices, and I did not investigate a course that did not share this mindset. Because of this, a
complete spectrum of all types of golf courses was not assessed. Time, budget, and a need to
narrow my scope accounted for this exclusion. Furthermore, it is to be noted that different types
of courses (private, club, resorts, etc.) have different audiences and budgets, which may account
for their ability to participate and implement certain practices. This is discussed further in the
Finding section.
The number of golfers interviewed at each course is inconsistent, and this is due to timing
of interviews, the weather conditions, and the pace of play at various courses. At Crystal Downs,
for instance, the weather was beautiful and many members were playing that weekend. In
contrast, weather at Forest Dunes was cold and rainy, which resulted in a smaller number of
12
golfers playing the course. Additionally, even if there was a sizable population to sample from,
not all golfers wished to be interviewed or stopped in the clubhouse or pro shop after they played
their rounds. A large enough overall sample size was still interviewed to provide statistically
relevant results, but they vary by respective course.
Findings:
If a golfer likes a sustainable course, he or she will return to play. This translates into
greater revenue for the course and a cause to continue the push for more sustainable golf course
practices and design. Golfers are the customer, the player, and the driver of the game. Without
golfer support and approval, a course cannot succeed in the future. It is important to understand
how golfers perceive more sustainable courses and what inspires them to play certain courses.
Environmental Concern and Awareness was the most frequently discussed topic for all
courses overall, accounting for 15% of the coded conversations (Appendix C, Table 3.1). It was
the most frequently coded topic at Crystal Downs and Radrick Farms. Greywalls golfers
expressed a concern for the environment that equaled their interest in course care and conditions.
Care and Conditions and Natural Design Aesthetic and Appreciation were the second and third
most popular factors that golfers discussed overall, and this trend was generally followed at most
courses. The only course that deviated more from this pattern was the Kingsley Club, where
golfers placed emphasis on care and conditions and all other factors received at least 50% less
interest (Appendix C, Table 3.4).
It should be noted that while Environmental Concern and Awareness was the most
discussed topic, it was not necessarily the topic of greatest concern for golfers. When asked to
select the top two factors that were the most important when playing a golf course, Care and
Conditions and Design easily outweighed the other factors of Environment, Convenience, and
Cost.
Golfers were also asked to define a “sustainable golf course,” and this resulted in a vast
range of interpretation and answers. This purposefully open-ended question generated a variety
of responses that revealed concerns of cost of play, declining golfer population, and water use.
These broad results further perpetuate that a sustainable golf course must take all factors into
account – the environment, the economics, and the enjoyment of golfers. The following
paragraphs examine each factor and the variety of viewpoints among golfers.
Environmental Concern and Awareness
This code produced a wide range of responses from golfers. Most golfers expressed some
sort of familiarity with the environment’s role in the game of golf. Water use, pesticides,
fertilizers, energy, climate, wildlife, course vegetation, turf type, and dune erosion were all
variables that golfers discussed throughout the interviews.
Interest in environmental practices at courses spanned a range from blatant disregard to
very interested and concerned. A popular response to the questions related to interest in
environmental practices in golf was “Mildly interested because I think it is important,” but many
golfers did not expand upon this in other responses (Personal Communication, all interviews).
One golfer from Radrick Farms noted, “I think the connection between the environment and the
golfer is quite deep, but between environmental issues and a golfer, I’m not so sure” (Personal
Communication, Radrick, 8/22/12).
There was a strong consensus among golfers that golf courses “enhance the environment,”
and “create an environment for wildlife” (Personal Communication, Radrick, 8/22/12 and Forest
13
Dunes, 8/14/12). Golfers at Crystal Downs and Radrick Farms expressed an increased
knowledge of environmentally conscious practices. They were more interested in how a course
could strive toward environmental and economic sustainability than observed at other courses.
There was a heightened recognition at these courses that sustainable design and maintenance is
“the future of golf courses” (Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12).
“You should always be environmentally-conscious. I don’t think you should sacrifice to
make the course prettier in someone else’s eyes. You don’t do things just for a rating but you do
them for what’s best for Crystal Downs. If you came back in the fall and winter, it’s just
beautiful. The colors, the dunes…” (Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12).
Environmental Awareness and Concern are manifested by a golfer’s own pursuit of these
values and also through the efforts of a course to publicize its efforts. Radrick Farms is a
particular example of this. The course proudly displays all of its environmental awards and
certifications for members to see. Signs throughout the course remind golfers of natural areas
and environmental management efforts. Upon entering the course, a sign for “Wildlife Crossing”
greets all guests, and this increased attention to wildlife is not unnoticed by golfers:
“There was a grounds crew man that had a 4 foot rattlesnake, and I said kill the thing! He
said that he was taking it to the Botanical Gardens and let it go. So even a venomous, poisionous
animal they will save. It’s the only place that I’ve seen a warning crossing for rabbits, turtles, and
snakes. Never seen that anywhere else.”
Golfers have responded positively to Radrick’s communication efforts, and they
appreciate that the course has put forth an effort to share various management practices. Golfers
at other courses also appreciate the efforts of superintendents and course managers to keep
players up-to-date. They expressed interest in learning about environmental practices, even if
such practices did not affect where they played or how they approached courses.
“I mean, a course adds a lot to the environment if it’s well-managed,” one Radrick
member said. “I like the fact that they let us know. There’s a ton of environment here – we have
trees, streams, deer, wild turkeys, and so much more.” (Personal Communication, Radrick,
8/22/12).
Not all responses to environmental awareness were as positive. Many golfers were very
concerned that a course’s environmental efforts would have negative implications for course care
and conditions. Others were familiar with environmental practices at their courses, but felt those
efforts had little influence over their experience and what course they played. One golfer
admitted that he was aware of the environmental measures that the course took when it was built,
but he expressed, “I think it’s a bunch of crap. The things that they did to preserve what was here
were too expensive for what people could afford” (Personal Communication, Forest Dunes,
8/11/12).
Care and Conditions
Of all the factors golfers were asked to rank, Care and Conditions surpassed all others in
terms of importance. Most golfers expressed satisfaction with the care and upkeep of the course
14
where interviewed, and a well-managed course was preferred above all other factors, no matter
what the layout or the design (Personal Communication, all interviews). Golfers appreciated a
well-maintained course that provides challenging, diverse experiences but is not unnecessarily
difficult to play. To put it simply, “the better the conditions, the more enjoyable the round is”
(Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12). It was generally understood that wellmaintained conditions enhance the design of the course and provide a better playing experience.
Golfers were asked to consider how sustainable practices will affect the care and
conditions of a course and if that would manipulate any desire to play a course. This question
triggered answers related to golfers’ expectations for course management and playability:
I guess it comes down to what your expectations might be. If your expectations are overwatered places in the desert like in Las Vegas, then nothing you’re going to do is going to
change that. If you’re going to play a link style course like in England where there are weeds and
grass, there’s obstacles; it’s not a manicured place. It’s a little rougher. I like that.
-Personal Communication, Radrick, 8/22/12
Well, I think people’s expectations should go down as far as what people think courses
should look like. They want them too green and too perfect. I think most places can still be fun
and have less inputs.
-Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12
I think the public is going to demand it to be a certain condition, and I think we would be
in favor of it it meets a certain condition. Certainly then, I think most golfers would be all for it.
-Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12
The American Public thinks that everything has to be perfect and if you go to Europe,
they play courses that aren’t perfect, yet everybody raves about it. I don’t think it has to be
perfect in any way, shape, or form. As long as it doesn’t get more expensive, I mean, for our
course, cost is a huge consideration.
-Personal Communication, Greywalls, 7/14/12
Other golfers did not share this perspective and were not as inclined to sacrifice certain
course conditions in favor of more sustainable practices. Green maintenance was one of the most
important criteria for golfers, but many concluded that as long as the greens were maintained
properly, they would not mind less intensive care on other parts of the golf course. However, the
overarching consensus was that golfers were happy with the care and conditions of their home
course and were open (on a scale from mildly to significantly) to the idea of a change in course
care and maintenance to ensure a more sustainable future for golf.
Natural Design (Aesthetics and Appreciation)
Natural Design followed Care and Conditions as the second most important factor golfers
valued. This factor compromised 13.6% of the total codes. When asked what they liked about the
respective course they were playing, golfers nearly always discussed the design of the course.
Words like “challenge,” “strategy,” “diversity,” “beauty,” and “variety” often accompanied
descriptions of why the design of the course appealed to golfers.
15
The beauty and naturalness of courses left a distinct impression on golfers who
appreciated not only the course track and layout but also the opportunity to be surrounded by
such a natural setting. Golfers at Radrick and Kingsley both noted that the course provided a
feeling of isolation in a beautiful place. One member of Kingsley Club noted, “It’s the best
course you will ever play in the world that you get to on a dirt road. And what I enjoy about it is
the variety of challenge. It’s always in good condition. Unique is the word that I would use.”
At Greywalls, a course where many different elements come into play – granite rocks
walls, trees, dunes, hills, creeks – the natural features of the course also provide a distinguishing
variety and challenge for the golfer. Both members and guests alike complimented the visual
beauty, and the majority of the interview population discussed the “spectacular views” of Lake
Superior’s coastline (Personal Communication, Greywalls, 7/14/22).
Golfers also expressed value for the variety of shots and lies that a well-designed course
delivers. This was especially highlighted at courses with memberships. Golfers liked the ability
to play the same course repeatedly but have a different experience every time. Each time golfers
mentioned the variety of shots and experiences they had at a course, they nearly always paired it
with an admiration of the course’s natural beauty and unique course design:
It is one of the prettiest courses in the Midwest for sure, but it is also very difficult. I
probably play well over a hundred rounds up here, and today I had four dozen shots that I had
never seen before. It’s an ever-changing course.
-Personal Communication, Greywalls, 7/14/22
First of all, how beautiful it is, second of all, how challenging it is, and thirdly, I just love
the fact that it’s different everyday…how different it is everyday because of the weather, the
wind. Because of that, it’s a treasure.
-Personal Commnication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12
“Challenge” was coded as its own variable to assess frequency of mention, but when
golfers did discuss the challenge of the course, it was nearly always attributed to course design.
Golfers at all courses except for one (Leslie Park, a municipal course) expressed their
appreciation for a course design that provided a challenging experience.
While golfers demanded a challenging experience, they also valued a sense of fairness on
the course. No one wanted a course that was so difficult that the experience could not be enjoyed
by an array of skill levels. Courses that were “open but challenging” offered more shot options
and promoted more creative strategy than courses with limited design (Personal Communication,
Radrick, 8/22/12). Golfers appreciated hazards that tested their game but were not impossible to
overcome. Forest Dunes was an example of a challenging but forgiving course, and golfers
expected a good course to provide both experiences for the most enjoyable game.
“It's a fair golf course. If you go and ride the golf course and look at the 150-yard
markers, what is called the turning point, that's the widest part of the fairway. It gives you a very
level playing field for whatever handicap you play from the tee, you should be able to hit the 150
mark and get a variety of shots and gives you the ability to get there and get on the green.”
(Personal Communication, Forest Dunes, 8/11/12).
16
Golfers at Greywalls liked that “it’s open, fair, and relaxing to play. Greywalls is good to
play when you want a challenge; it’s not too intimidating with its placement” (Personal
Communication, Greywalls, 7/14/22).
Cost to Play
The financial obligation of golf was discussed in multiple contexts at all courses. Nearly
every golfer participated in some sort of dialogue about the cost to play golf or operate a course.
This topic was of clear concern to golfers who saw rising costs as obstacles for the future of the
game.
“It's a real dilemma, so many courses in trouble financially. So much sustainability
depends on whether we stay in this funk or how long it that goes on before the economy comes
back and people find golf more affordable. There are some great courses advertised for $30, $40,
so there are great places to play.” (Personal Communication, Forest Dunes, 8/11/12).
First, golfers were asked to consider the impact of implementing sustainable management
practices on the cost to play golf. Responses ranged from little to no impact to a substantial
impact (in terms of decreasing cost to manage and play) that could have a substantial benefit on
the future of golf. At Radrick Farms, golfers typically did not think that implementing more
sustainable practices would have that much of an impact on the course’s finances, but they still
advocated for the practices “because it’s the right thing to do” (Personal Communication,
Radrick, 8/22/12).
Other golfers saw the trade-off between sustainable practices and cost as a more
advantageous one. Many golfers supported the implementation of more sustainable management
practices because they recognized the economic benefit of reducing inputs on a golf course.
“Some environmentally friendly practices might cost more, but then there are less inputs.
So you know, I think you should try to do as good as you can, so if there is less overhead, the
prices should be lowered. But I think it should be advertised, I can't think of anyone that would
want to play the place less because it's sustainable. Most people aren't too concerned, but they
won't avoid a course because of what it's doing environmentally” (Personal Communication,
Crystal Downs, 8/4/12).
Many golfers understood that if you reduce the resource input on the course, it reduces
the overall cost to manage a course and play a round of golf. There was an awareness of industry
advances in water management irrigation systems, drought-resistant turf types, and less resourceintensive management practices. Essentially, it came down to “the more bad stuff you put on the
course, the more it costs” (Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12). However,
generally golfers stressed the importance of the economic benefit of employing sustainable
practices with less emphasis on the actual effect on the environment. Concern for the
environment was not at the core of most people’s reactions – “Don’t double greens fees to plant
a bunch of flowers” (Personal Communication, Greywalls 7/4/12).
Secondly, there was a consensus that golf was an expensive and somewhat inaccessible
game, which could be troubling for the longevity and popularity of the sport. Golfers want
reasonable prices at well-managed courses that provide an enjoyable, challenging experience.
High prices can deter even the most enthusiastic golfer and erode at interest in the game.
17
“Golf is a costly game and it’s a difficult game. So if it costs more, people are going to
give the game up. I think they have to be very concerned about costs, more so than the
environment, more so because the environment is going to be gone” (Personal Communication,
Radrick, 8/22/12).
Golfers stressed the importance of keeping golf economically feasible. If golf becomes
too expensive, it will lose a substantial portion of its population base and discourage potential
players, especially women and children.
“I think costs are going to be a factor to keep more and more people interested in the
game. It has to be reasonably priced to play” (Personal Communication, Forest Dunes, 8/11/12).
Golf takes a lot of time and money, and at each course, golfers expressed concern that
golf is becoming too expensive and not enough families, women, and kids are interested in the
game.
“Well, again, golf is not a cheap sport. A lot of courses are struggling right now. If you
increase the cost to play, you are going to see less people play and revenues are going to be down.
It's kind of a vicious circle” (Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12).
Finally, golfers appreciated reasonable greens fees that may or may not have been a
factor in their decision to play a certain course. Leslie Park was consistently called “a good value”
for the integrity of its design and its reasonable prices (Personal Communication, Leslie Park,
10/28/12). One golfer described a high quality and affordable course that he played in the
Badlands that “was really fun to play, and it was beautiful. The greens fees are $45.00 and they
have over 150 people playing a day” (Personal Communication, Radrick, 8/22/12). In general,
golfers exhibited an appreciation for well-designed, challenging courses with an affordable
greens fee. Many noted their surprise and delight to see reasonable fees and claimed that it
heightened their enjoyment of the overall experience.
Sustainability:
Golfers were asked to define “sustainable golf,” and this generated a vast range of
interpretation and answers. No definition of “sustainable” was given to the golfer in the
interviews; the question was purposefully vague and open-ended. Major themes touched upon
ranged from more environmentally-focused (resource inputs, water use and management,
fertilizers, energy) to economics (greens fees, cost of care and upkeep of the course, declining
golfer populations) to the overall experience (pace of play, challenge of course, enjoyment, being
outside, camaraderie).
The following samples illustrate the wide range of definitions of what “sustainable golf”
means:
We have to look at ourselves in the mirror and come to reasonable terms on what's
acceptable and not and what's sustainable. A little less water, a little less fertilizer. Maybe it's not
as perfect or as green, or the greens aren't as fast or the bunkers aren't as good…over 18 holes?
Just be happy you can play. You're out there, enjoy it.
-Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12
18
The number one thing is water usage. I play a lot in other areas of the country; it's a big
expenditure and a big use of their resources. Overall, golfers might have some awareness but it's
not an issue for them. They just want to play golf.
-Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12
It’s all about economics, especially up here. Economics drives it right now.
-Personal Communication, Greywalls, 7/4/12
Well, sustainable golf would be to try to eliminate disruption as much as you can….to try
to integrate the design into the natural features. It's a two-way sword though between design and
management, Jim knows what he's doing, but not everyone could manage this golf course. Some
superintendents couldn't manage this course…they'd just throw the water too much, they don't
care, they don't trim around the trees, they just cut the lawn, they don't care about the natural
plantings.
-Personal Communication, Forest Dunes, 8/11/12
What is the future for golf to make it sustainability? Keep it green. There is a big
difference between country club play and municipal play. Country club needs to be interesting if
you are going to be playing over and over. Municipal play needs to be quick enough to make the
turns and get people through and cost-efficient. You couldn't have this as a municipal course
because you'd have five people that just never finished and you have to go look for them.
-Personal Communication, Kingsley, 8/6/12
A sustainable golf course at least breaks even financially, it causes no great
environmental harm to the regional harm and is enjoyable to be in.
-Personal Communication, Radrick, 8/22/12
I think sustainable golf means you find a balance between the enjoyment of the golfers,
the playability of the course, and the cost of maintaining the course and the cost in term of
habitat you know, water usage and pollution and all that. You find a reasonable balance that
makes for a playable, enjoyable course that you can sustain over time that doesn't deplete the
environment and pollute. I would consider Radrick a sustainable course.
-Personal Communication, Radrick, 8/22/12
Many golfers discussed water as being an issue of concern for the future of golf, as well
as the need to attract more women and young golfers to the game. Cost remained a huge factor
when considering sustainable golf, and it was again referred to in terms of greens fees and
management operations. Cost was often linked to more sustainable practices that could
potentially reduce the cost to play and manage a course. Design was discussed as well through
discussions about playability and fun on the course, two factors that golfers felt would entice
more people to play the game and increase the popularity of golf.
Radrick and Crystal Downs were the two most frequently cited courses as “sustainable”
by their golfer sample populations. These two courses have the greatest number of golfers who
believe that their course is a sustainable course and do take an interest in the qualifications
regarding that.
19
Golfer Expectations
Many golfers understood that the golf industry is turning in a new direction, and the shift
toward a more sustainable management regime is “going to happen eventually; it has to happen.
We are not going to have a choice” (Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12). The
discussion golfers’ expectations related to the current and future state of golf generated many
comments from the sample populations.
“I guess it comes down to what your expectations might be. If your expectations are overwatered places in the desert like in Las Vegas, then nothing you're gonna do is gonna change that.
If you're going to play a link style course like in England where there are weeds and grass, there's
obstacles; it's not a manicured place, it's a little rougher. I like that.”
-Personal Communication, Radrick, 8/22/12
While golfers value the care and conditions of the course and hold courses to a certain
standard, most golfers thought expectations of golfers “should go down concerning what people
think courses should look like. They want them too green and too perfect” (Personal
Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/2012). This further supports the advancement of the shift in
the industry toward a more sustainable future for golf. Sustainability is on golfers’ radars – it is
just not as explicit. Golfers recognize an idealized expectation for golf courses is not sustainable
for the future of the game, both environmentally and economically.
Superintendents and course personnel further advocated for a shift in golfer expectation.
This was especially identified at Crystal Downs Country Club. Golf professional Fred Muller
recognized “a shift in golfers because they have no choice. The Augusta factor is a huge negative
for golf besides the excitement factor. That’s not the way golf is supposed to be. But this is a
different place. People here [Crystal Downs] don’t think golf is supposed to be that way”
(Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12). Dan Lucas, superintendent at Kingsley Club,
noted, “Golfers want perfection, from the boom days of golf when everyone had money, and
they got used to a perfect playing surface. Now a lot of places have to do with less, and I wish
there was a way to impress upon golfers that this [gestures to course] is better for the
environment and much more fun as it is” (Personal Communication, Kingsley, 8/6/12).
Superintendents at all courses understood the value of the environment dictating and defining the
playing experience.
Discussion
The condition, and thus enjoyment, of any golf course relies upon a healthy environment.
Industry professionals, superintendents, and golf writers and commentators have increasingly
been advocating for environmental and economic sustainability over the past decade. In 2009,
the USGA committed to “taking proactive steps to minimize our environmental footprint and
integrate environmental considerations into all aspects of our activities” (USGA 2009) through
various initiatives and programs such as the USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research and
the USGA Water Summit held in November 2012. Golf as an industry is changing, and the
USGA is focusing on promoting more creative niches for the golfer “to recognize that part of the
beauty is the variety out there. High quality does not have to mean perfect conditions. That is the
beauty of the golf course; it is the variety of every shot that you play” (Personal Communication,
Dr. Kim Erusha, Managing Director of the USGA Green Section). Mead has written many
articles defining what makes a golf course great, and he argues, “sustainable standards and
20
practices will prove to be good for the game, the golf business, and the planet” (2009). Golf
writer Geoff Shackleford stresses in his books that it is time that the golf industry “embraces
native looks and…consider[s] all practical means to use less water” (2005).
This assessment of golfers’ expectations, perceptions, and motivations related to the
courses they enjoy and choose to play has begun to fill the gap between the players’ views of
what makes a course enjoyable and the aforementioned perspectives. While it is unlikely that
golfers themselves will start demanding less fertilizers and more solar panels, findings from the
interviews show that golfer populations generally do appreciate, care, and even hope for more
sustainable design and management at their course.
Analysis of Findings
Assessment of the interviews revealed that all golfers are interested in the environment,
but in a way that is unique to the golfing world. It cannot be compared to what is understood in
popular culture, university initiatives, or in news articles. For golfers, the golf “environment” and
“sustainability” is not about what is being done, but it is about what is there. It is not about
recycling, water use, turf type, or the number of environmental certification programs awarded to
a course. The environmental interest seems deeper than that, almost to an intrinsic, somewhat
poetic level. Golfers spoke of their course environment as a work of art – admiring its design, its
beauty, and the experience it provides. There was a deep sense of appreciation, pride, and
oftentimes nostalgia when golfers discussed their respective courses. A course’s environment
was admired for its artistry, its integrity, and the seemingly endless diversity it often offered
players. Beyond its visual beauty, the environment was valued for the experience it offered – a
challenging template for a mentally and physically stimulating exercise, an escape from reality
into the outdoors, and a gathering place where memories and new friends are made. The
“environment” was tied with the pursuit to defeat the greatest challenge of all – mastering the
course; defined and constantly affected by what Mother Nature has in store for players that day.
Players appreciated a playing environment that was visually appealing, demanded strategy, and
was able to stand the test of time.
These essential and highly valued attributes of a course are all linked to how a course is
managed and maintained. While not every golfer is interested in knowing the intricate details of
course construction and management, there is a deep veneration for golf course design. Although
it is not always explicitly expressed, interviews reveal that a golfer cannot appreciate a course
without inherently caring about its environment. Because of this, there is an indirect investment
in the techniques used to maintain the course’s environmental aesthetic and the challenge posed.
Even golfers who claimed that they did not care about environmental issues and practices
considered the natural design to be an important criterion for their course evaluation. It is
extremely difficult, and I would argue, impossible, to separate a golfer from the course
environment. Everything about the game is rooted in it – the design, the care and conditions, the
enjoyment, the challenge, even the psychology.
Not all golfers were unaware of a course’s efforts to maintain an environmentally
sustainable course. There were a significant number of golfers who were interested in the
technical side of running a course and were familiar with the superintendent’s management
practices. There was an observed pride when golfers discussed their knowledge of a course’s
environmental practices, such as water-saving techniques, wildlife preservation, or minimal
mowing and pesticide use, as well as knowledge of a course’s creation or design history. Golfers
at courses molded by the hands of renowned designers, such as Alister MacKenzie and Pete Dye,
21
had a greater interest in the environment and design principles. Additionally, golfers who were
members at private or semi-private courses had a greater familiarity and interest in best
environmental practices due to the greater sense of community fostered by a membership.
This sense of community was repeatedly discussed as integral for a sustainable game in the
future.
“Sustainable golf means…first of all, it’s a community project. The obvious one is
environmental stewardship, but it also using local knowledge. It means that the maintenance
crew grows food for the clubhouse; it means you hire caddies and bagstaff from the community.
Really encourage people to walk and use caddies and the course to use agronomics and
composting and gardens. The environmental stuff is obvious.”
-Fred Muller, Golf Professional, Personal Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12
Golfers were explicitly concerned about three fundamental factors of the game:
community/camaraderie, cost to play, and water use and conservation. These factors are all
rooted in the environment and are essential to assessing the future of the game, for both
competitive and sport golfers. Interviews prove that sustainable golf goes beyond course
management and design, however.
The course itself fosters a sense of community; it is what every golfer playing that day
has in common. Golfers appreciate a sense of community, fostered by being outside in a natural,
somewhat isolated setting. This was identified throughout the interviews through two common
themes of “being outside” and the “camaraderie of the game.” Golfers expressed time and time
again their contentment, excitement, and often relief at the chance to be outside in nature and
play solo or with friends, colleagues, and peers. With increased sprawl and land development
and the stresses and struggles of everyday life, the chance to escape into a natural setting can be
welcome and invigorating.
While some may argue that a golf course is far from “natural,” golfers’ nearly unanimous
appreciation for the natural beauty and scenic views of their respective courses demonstrates that
a course can provide an experience rooted in nature. The sites of all visited courses co-exist with
their environment through indigenous landscaping and provide golfers a unique experience that
only that environment could offer.
Only two holes at Radrick Farms offer brief glimpses of the external built environment,
and the course is home to an impressive array of native trees. A giant wall of natural granite
greets golfers with its intimidating beauty at Greywalls. Crystal Downs sits unassumingly along
Lake Michigan’s coast with a few houses along the back nine that hide their presence behind
trees and shrubbery. Kingsley is surrounded completely by forest and requires a drive down an
isolated, seemingly never-ending dirt road to get there. Leslie Park boasts orchards and native
burn plots, and Forest Dunes presents a unique web of open meadows, old pine forests, and
rugged dunes. Clearly these courses offer a natural experience that heightens the enjoyment of
the game. Letting nature dictate the course and the conditions provides a more rewarding
experience for the golfer and stimulates the excitement for and the economy of the game –
golfers want to play challenging, one-of-a-kind settings, and they will pay to play those courses.
The enjoyment of playing with friends in a beautiful setting is something golfers do not take for
granted – they greatly value it and understand its importance in the vitality of the game in the
future.
22
The cost to play is a growing concern for golfers, especially those who have experienced
a rise in prices and a decline in the golfer population. A course like Greywalls, already under a
strict budget, prompted more golfer awareness concerning water scarcity and resource use – but
this too was driven by economic limitations. A plurality of golfers at Greywalls did not concern
themselves with environmental causes; they were only focused on maintaining the club’s
financial status. They did not want to see money being used for efforts deemed showy and a
waste of money. Golfers were also worried that rising costs are preventing a new generation of
golfers from teeing up, especially with the turbulent economy. In many golfers’ eyes, the
sustainability of the game is limited by the shrinking golfer population. Cost to play was
considered one of the greatest roadblocks, and a part of the solution lies in better, less-intensive
maintenance practices.
The environmental factor of biggest concern to golfers was water use and preservation.
Golfers are clearly concerned with environmental threats to the game, but very few were able to
make the connection to their course’s efforts to preserve and conserve water. Drought, limited
water resources, and the considerable number of gallons it can take to run a course were
mentioned in nearly every interview. It should be noted that The Midwest faced a serious
drought during the summer of 2012, which may or may have not influenced golfers’ perceptions.
(NOAA National Climatic Data Center 2012).
Greywalls was a forerunner in water concerns; the course sits on the edge of Lake
Superior yet faces water scarcity issues (Appendix A). The course did not look remarkably
brown or dry – if anything, it looked remarkably green considering its constraints. Golfers at
Greywalls were noticeably complimentary of the course’s aesthetic and green conditions, despite
the course’s less intensive use of water. Water scarcity is increasingly pushing courses to be
more innovative in their maintenance practices, and Greywalls is a clear example of this.
The big picture threats of water scarcity, population decline, and rising costs triggered
great alarm to many golfers, but they were not always able to conceptualize smaller, locallybased, environmental threats. Results show that golfers want the game to survive and prosper in
the future, and as DeVries states, “golf courses change over time, things come and go” (Personal
Communication, 8/4/12). If golfers want their courses, and ultimately the game, to have a secure
place in the future, it is time that they consider the changes that courses will have to and will be
making, and not always for the worst.
Implications for the Golf Industry
Golfers do care about the environment in which they play their game. They express
appreciation for unique, one-of-a-kind settings, challenging design scenarios that require a
strategic mind and creativity, and a natural setting that lets them absorb completely into one of
the oldest games of all time. They are on par with superintendents, industry committees, and
architects and designers with their appreciation and concern for the environment. They just do
not always speak the language of bunker management, pesticide use, or amount of dirt moved or
wells dug to provide the experience that a course may offer. The question facing the industry
next is – do golfers require a greater awareness of environmental practices to assure survival of
the game and, if so, how to best promote and educate golfers?
A shift toward sustainability in the industry is necessary. However, this shift must be
customized and unique to the game of golf. Golfers were fairly split on their desire to learn more
about what courses were doing or will do to preserve, protect, and maintain the environment.
Golfers are there to play the course and would rather strategize their game than analyze the
23
course’s environmental practices. This does not mean that courses should be relieved of efforts
to increase sustainable management practices. A careful approach should be taken, one that
focuses on the course itself through sustainable management, but also on the interest and
appreciation of these practices by course clientele. What is “sustainable” will vary by course,
depending on its location, climate, terrain, and other attributes. It is difficult to compare the
management of one course to another. Golfers at municipal courses are typically there for the
good value and quick pace of play. Golfers at private clubs have a greater investment in the
course’s design and management practices, as well as a heightened enjoyment because they
continually return to play. Each has different challenges and advantages, but it is in the interest
of all parties – golfers, superintendents, managers, and grounds crew – to endorse a shift toward
courses that utilize natural design and sustainable management.
A “subtle” shift toward sustainability may be the best option for many courses. As one
golfer at Crystal Downs explained, “I think it means finding the compromise of enjoyable
conditions but also be cost-effective and have a minimal impact. To me, it goes hand in hand.
The more bad stuff you put on the course, the more it costs. Most people aren't as worried about
the environment as they should be, but they are worried about the bottom line, so I think that's a
good way to make golf more sustainable. Almost sell it as this saves money and makes your
round cheaper because most people don't care. Almost sustainability in disguise” (Personal
Communication, Crystal Downs, 8/4/12).
“In disguise” does not mean tricking, hiding, or scheming behind golfer’s backs. It means
speaking to golfers in a language that they understand and about the factors that they care about
– cost, care and conditions, natural design. Highlight the things that mean the most to the golfer,
such as the camaraderie and competition of the game. Golfer education needs to focus on firmly
establishing the relationship between the golfer and the environment; essentially redefining the
game to what it originally was: a battle between human and the elements of nature. Golfers will
respond more enthusiastically and make connections to the environment through their own
“lingo” rather than trying to understand the jargon that sometimes surrounds sustainability
culture. The governing bodies of golf need to demonstrate to golfers that they all are part of a
community inspired by the pure joy of the game.
Many, if not most, are aware that the game is changing, and it is imperative that the
industry establishes a dialogue with golfers about the direction the game is headed. Golfers who
did not know about sustainable management practices often expressed an interest in knowing
more, but they were not going to go out of their way to discover that information. If anything,
this survey reveals that there is ample interest from golfers in learning more about environmental
practices at the courses they play. This might not change a golfer’s perception of the game or
where they choose to play – yet. As more and more courses adopt sustainable management plans
and communicate these efforts with golfers, a new norm will be established that could act as a
new incentive for golfers. Thus, the industry must encourage golf course personnel to educate
their clientele on best management practices and sustainable course initiatives. This will help for
a smoother transition toward sustainability, proactively address any concerns and skepticism, and
ultimately, bring the golfer into a more intimate relationship with the course and the community.
The drive in the golf industry toward more sustainable management and design
techniques can help maintain the triple bottom line for a course. It would reduce the amount of
resources and time given to care and upkeep of the course and would save the course and the
golfer money. Less resource-use and disruption on the course does not mean a less pleasing
experience or a loss of game integrity. The course can still maintain its visual aesthetics and
24
provide the best experience for the golfer – we have the technology to do it, but it is the mindsets
of the golfers and course personnel that can be limiting. If a greater connection was drawn
between environmental and economic efficiency, the interest and approval for more sustainable
practices by golfers would likely increase.
This connection has been established at six very different courses throughout the state of
Michigan. Golfers care about the environment at their courses. They want beautiful, challenging
courses that can thrive in the future. The enjoyment of the game is derived from the course’s
architecture, challenge of play, biodiversity and natural vegetation, and its place-based
uniqueness. What a sustainable course looks like varies from course to course, depending upon
the resources available, topography of the land, and weather and climate conditions. Golfers
understand the value of the niche their pastime occupies, and they prefer to play courses that
capitalize on the different elements, vegetation, and contours of the land. Golfers also like
knowing what makes their course unique. Throughout the interviews, golfers boasted about what
they considered different, special, and alluring about their course. These design and condition
distinctions would not be lost through a greater focus on sustainability but heightened, as they
stem from what the environment has to offer, as well as how the superintendent and grounds
crew manage the environment. These interviews have established the connection between the
environment, economics, and enjoyment has always existed in golfers’ perceptions of the game,
but was not always clear.
Avenues for Future Research
This study cannot and does not represent the views of all golfers, superintendents, and
industry professionals. It is a focused case study on carefully selected sites to better understand
the perspectives of golfers related to golf courses, sustainability, and the environment.
In the future, an assessment of golfers at courses not considered sustainable would
provide a useful parallel to compare and contrast the expectations, motivations, and perceptions
of golfers related to the subjects of natural design, sustainability, and best environmental
practices. This would paint a broader picture of the values of golfers, as well as superintendents
and course personnel. All the superintendents included in this study were in favor of
implementing more sustainable environmental management practices. It would be worthwhile to
assess if this was a common industry-wide view or one isolated to courses already focused on a
more environmentally friendly agenda. A broader study would also expose any bias golfers at
sustainable courses may have toward environmental practices. For example, does golfing at a
course that advertises their environmental efforts predispose a golfer toward caring more about
sustainability? This could provide useful information for golf organizations that are working to
promote better environmental practices and educate golfers on the benefit of such a shift.
By default, this study primarily sampled golfers from the ages of 40-60 years. There was
no target age bracket, but a further study focusing on the next generation of golfers (ages 13-25)
might reveal a greater acceptance for greener initiatives in the golfing world, as the shift toward
sustainability gains momentum. A broader study that records other demographics of participants,
such as age difference, gender, and ethnic make-up, may influence the findings of perceived
attitudes of golfers about environmental sustainability.
A final recommendation appeals to organizations like the USGA to utilize the
information provided from this study to: 1. Conduct a bigger, broader version of this study and 2.
Use the information from this study, and potentially a greater study, to inform a stronger, more
target-based campaign to encourage and educate golfers on the benefits and importance of
25
driving golf toward a more sustainable game. Both the industry and the golfer must adopt to
changes in the future, and it would be a smoother and more enjoyable transition if these were
popular and accepted changes.
Conclusion
The issues surrounding golf courses and the environment are numerous, but recognition
of the importance of golf course sustainable development and innovation is increasingly gaining
credence in the golfing community (Barton 2008). It seems indisputable that current and future
course management strategies need to be more ecologically sustainable, thus posing the
challenging question of whether golf courses can be environmentally, ecologically, and
economically responsible venues, while maintaining the aesthetic qualities that attract many to
the sport.
The game of golf is inextricably derived from the environment; and for a golfer to like
and enjoy a course is for a golfer to like and enjoy the environment. Diverse course
environments and design styles are what draw golfers to the game in the first place. It is more
engaging, challenging, and pleasurable for golfers to experience new, thought-provoking, gametesting situations in a perfect combination of sport and architecture. If a golfer likes a sustainable
course, he or she will return to play. Golfers are the customer, the player, and the driver of the
game and without their interest and support, a course cannot succeed in the future. Therefore, it
is important to understand what inspires golfers to play certain courses and how they perceive
sustainability’s role in golf.
The results of this study demonstrate that a sustainable golf course must take all factors
into account – the environment, the economics, and the enjoyment of golfers. Sacrificing any
part of the 3E’s will be a detriment to the course in the long run. While it might be hard at times
to see the inter-connectedness of the three factors, most golfers were able to make a connection
between the environment and economics, in some way or form. The 3E’s of sustainable golf
design and management can present major challenges to the course management but also
compliment each other in a way that, if managed properly, can result in beautiful, economical,
fun, and challenging golf courses that are less resource-intensive and less expensive to maintain.
The sample population of golfers in this study should be more than enough to persuade the
management at each visited course, as well as the industry as a whole, to assertively pursue an
environmentally focused, sustainable agenda.
26
References
Barton, J. (May 2008). How Green Is Golf? Golf Digest. Retrieved from
http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2008-05/environment_intro
Cornish, G. and R. Whitten. The Golf Course. 1987. Rutledge. New York City, New York.
Deford, Frank. (June 11 2008). Water-Thirsty Courses Need to Go Green. Sweetness and Light, National
Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91363837
DeVries, M. (1994). A plan for the sustainable management of native roughs at crystal downs
country club. Masters Practicum. University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and the
Environment, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Doak, T. (1992). The Anatomy of a Golf Course: The Art of Golf Course Architecture. Short Hills, New Jersey:
Burford Books.
Mead, T. (2009). Creating a new sustainable business model for golf. Tee-Off Times. Michigan
Golf Course Owners Association. Vol. 20, No. 1. March/April 2009.
Mead, T. (2009). The First Steps Toward Sustainable Golf. Course Conditions. The Michigan Golf
Course Superintendents Association.
Schiffman, R. (November 2009). Interview with Thomas L. Friedman. Golf Digest. Retrieved from
http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2009-11/environment_thomasfriedman_interview?currentPage=2
Shackleford, G. (2003). Grounds for Golf: The History and Fundamentals of Golf Course Design. New York, New
York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Shackleford, G. (2005). Lines of Charm: Brilliant and Irreverent Quotes, Notes, and Anecdotes from
Golf’s Golden Age Architects. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Sports Media Group.
Shackleford, G. (1997). Masters of the Links: Essays on the Art of Golf and Course Design. Chelsea, Michigan:
Sleeping Bear Press.
Shackleford, G. (2005). The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost Its Way and How to Get it Back. Seattle, Washington:
Sasquatch Books.
Yasuda, G. (December 5, 2012). Golf answers urgent call to grow the game. Golf Week. Retrieved from
http://golfweek.com/news/2012/dec/05/golf-answers-urgent-call-grow-game/
Audubon International. 2013. Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf. Retrieved from
http://www.auduboninternational.org/acspgolf
DeVries Designs. Golf Course Architecture. 2010. Retrieved from http://devriesdesigns.com
Golf 20/20, Environmental Institute for Golf, and the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. (2012).
An Introduction to the Position, Values, and Benefits of Sustainability for the Golf Facility.
Golf 20/20. (October 2012). The 2011 Golf Economy Report: Executive Summary. SRI
International.
Golf Digest Publications. (2008.) Golf and the Environment: Golfer Perceptions and Attitudes Concerning the
Game and its Relationship with the Environment.
27
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA). 2013. Environment and Sustainability. Retrieved
from http://www.gcsaa.org
Michigan Turfgrass Environmental Stewardship Program. 2009. Online. Retrieved from.
http://www.mitesp.org
NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (July 2012). State of the Climate: Drought for June 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/2012/6.
USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online. (December 2012). Proceedings from Golf’s Use of Water:
Solutions for a more Sustainable Game. Volume 11, Number 12. Presented by the United States Golf
Association on November 6 and 7, 2012, in Dallas, Texas.
Radrick Farms Environmental Stewardship Guide. 2012. Retrieved from
http://radrick.umich.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/Envir-Stewardship-Guide.pdf
United States Golfer’s Association (USGA). (January 2009). Golf and the Environment.
Retrieved from http://www.usga.org/Course-Care/Golf-and-the-Environment/The-USGA-s-EnvironmentalCommitment/
28
Appendix A
Golf Course Environmental Management Practices
Table 2. Course Environmental Characteristics
Source: Interviews with course superintendents, pros, and designers through on-site interviews.
Course
Name
Greywalls
Greens
Crystal
Downs
Roll 10-11
Bird list, bobcat,
speed,
coyotes, deer,
undulating,
various rodents
small in size,
poa annua
(requires most
water and
fungicides),
ice damage in
winter
Kingsley
Punchbowl
Yellow jackets,
greens, Roll butterflies
9-10 or 11.512, green size
dictated by
Mother
Nature
Forest
Dunes
N/A
Radrick
Leslie
Wildlife Tracking
Turf & Grass Types,
Vegetation
Sand based
Deer, turkey, bear, Drought-resistant turf,
greens, dome cougar, territorial fine-leaf fescue,
greens, L-93 grouse, coyotes,
bluegrass, 17 acres of
bentgrass
wolves
added native grass, cool
season grasses
“All wildlife except
elk.” –Jim Bluck,
supintendent. Acts
as wildlife corridor
for the National
Forest
Water coverage Water use
Fertilizer & Pesticide
Use
Manmade
Dam as source, cannot Fungus and snow
pond, seasonal run full irrigation cycle, mold sprayed wallwaterfall,
one well for water,
to-wall, low input
mitigated
emphasis on
otherwise
wetlands, Lake conservation
Superior
shoreline
Old variety apple and No natural
Wells use topographic Snow mold poa
pear orchards, annual
features on
pressure to move water annua on greens
bluegrass, milkweed,
course, long
downhill, 18-20 million sprayed as needed,
bentgrass turf, fescue, frontage on
gallons/year, handheld pre-and post20 different native
Lake Michigan, moisture meters,
emergent pesticides
grasses in native areas, small wetlands computer-controlled
no significant seeding by 8th tee
irrigation system, hand
and spot watering
Bunker
Management
Tend bunkers once
a month, don’t rake
everyday – “No
needs, it’s a
hazard” –Craig
Moore,
superintendent.
Fly-mow edges,
rounded bunkers,
“finger-style” is
characteristic of
McKenzie,
maintain natural
setting
Sheep’s Fescue, (uses
less water), bent grass,
native dunegrass, wild
strawberries, milkweed,
mint, trees most
difficult issue for
course, sandy areas that
don’t hold nutrients
well
Big and little bluestem,
sweet ferns, side oats
gramma, Indian grass,
switchgrass, sedgegrass,
bulrush, Canadian wild
rye, lupine, native wild
flowers, 80 acres of
total maintained turf,
jack pine burn plots,
high unmaintained
grasses in the rough,
Annual Bluegrass,
Creeping Bentgrass
(Greens, Tees,
Fairways), Kentucky
Bluegrass, Perennial
Ryegrass and Tall
Fescue
Over 130 bunkers,
edges raked, less
maintenance due to
less concern of
perfect edging,
local sand
No ponds or
water on site,
surrounded by
forest
27 acre manmade lake
Pump straight from
wells in irrigation
system; “We use as
little water as we can
get away with.”
Waste2Water, 1400
irrigation heads, draw
from lake and wells,
well drawn from 300
feet below Au Sable
River, excellent
drainage system,
equipment wash station
conserves more than
500,00 gallons/year,
pond aerator
Roll 10-10.5 Eastern
Fry Pond,
Moisture meters give a
Massasauga
Fleming Creek, hard number
Rattlesnake, deer,
freshwater
to make decisions on
mole, coyote, field
wetlands,
whether the grass needs
mouse, muskrat,
naturalized
water, how much it
woodchuck, ringshorelines
losing through the day
necked pheasant,
and to determine how
variety of native
much to water and what
and migratory birds
spots at night
Roll 9 -11,
Turkeys, coyotes, Bentgrass tees,
Traver creek, 3 Sprinklers monitor
top dress with deer, Cooper’s
Bluegrass and poa
ponds on
everyday moisture, use
sand 4-6
hawks, bald eagles, annua greens, Rye grass course
evapotranspiration rate
times/year,
snapping turtles,
fairways, fescue rough,
to tell how much plants
vertical mow numerous
seed patches and in
use water, use less
2-3 times a
undocumented
divet mix on tees, pear
water compared to other
year, light
birds
and apple orchards
courses: less manpower,
weight roller
rain is better than
2-3 times a
irrigation system
week
Herbicides on natural
areas in spring,
wetting agents every
2-3 years on fairway
spots
2 lbs of nitrogen on Naturally edged
trees, 1.5 lbs on
bunkers
fairways, 1 lb on
greens, hand
fertilizers areas, uses
organic
micronutrients, snow
mold in winter, no
spray zone
Fertilizer used after
soil/tissue
test results have been
reviewed to tell the
soil or grass nutrient
needs, pesticides and
fungicides used
curatively
or preventatively
Sprays curatively,
not preventatively:
greens 12 times/year,
tees 3/year, and
fairways 1/year.
Fertilizers sprayed
on top
Fly-mowing,
raking, and edging.
See: fertilizers.
Raked with a
mechanical bunker
rake 3-4 times a
week, Michigan
sand
29
Appendix B
Golfer Surveys
Figure 1. Golfer Questionnaire
Figure 2. Golfer Preference Card
30
Appendix C
Frequency Reports for Golfer Survey Coding
Table 3.1. Statistics: All Courses
Table 3.2. Statistics: Greywalls
Table 3.3. Statistics: Crystal Downs Country Club
Table 3.4. Statistics: Kingsley Club
31
Table 3.5. Statistics: Forest Dunes
Table 3.6. Statistics: Leslie Park
Table 3.7. Statistics: Radrick Farms
32