Golf clubs aren’t just boring, but they are inefficient. Golf courses use an inordinate amount of land, considering how few people use them. Visually, golf courses are rarely an improvement over the land they replace. I know of a golf course that have been turned back into semi-wild park. It now has wild thistles and wildflowers and is filled with wildlife. I love going there. It probably also sees more use than before.
Golf courses also easy for me to dismiss since I don’t play golf. What about ski, a sport I do know and like? I was curious which of the two provides more recreation per acre. For comparison, I also added tennis. Here is what Claude came up with.
| Factor | Golf | Tennis | Ski |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facility size (acres) | 150 (18 holes) | 0.6 (4 courts) | 200-1,000 or more |
| Daily user-hours | 80-144 | 16 | 2,000-5,000 |
| Season length (months) | 8-10 | 10-12 | 4-5 |
| Annual user-hours | 100,000-150,000 | 60,000-85,000 | 1,500-4,000 |
| Annual recreation hours per acre | 700-1,000 | 60,000-85,000 | 1,500-4,000 |
Even though ski has a much shorter season than golf, it’s two-fold more efficient land use. In fact, golf is likely the least efficient type of sport when it comes to land use, leaving aside exotic sports like polo. Either lose against tennis by a factor and it’s not even close. Team sports like soccer and especially basketball are probably even more efficient.
This confirms by existing suspicion that golf is an extreme waste of acreage, although I will concede that ski is only slightly better. In defense of ski, its impact on the landscape is lower than golf.
Nehaveigur 