Let's talk history, at least in the USA. During the 60's and 70's, wall to wall green maintained turf was the ideal largely inspired by color tv's Masters coverage. It was often referred to as the Masters Syndrome. In 1976, Paul Voykin, who was in the midst of a 48 year tenure as Superintendent at Briarwood CC, published an article in the Greens' Section Record and gave a talk to the superintendents association entitle Over Grooming Is Overspending. PV suggested that maintaining out of the way areas was unnecessary and costly. He also suggested that significant benefits relating to beauty and the environment would follow. If you look at the article, the dollars involved compared to today are laughably small.
PV's talk did not result in a rush to naturalizing golf courses but over time the sheer logic of his position has taken hold. Certainly there are instances where the practice is taken to the extreme. I concede that significant forced carries over impenetrable gunk should be avoided. There is also a level of skill, often developed via trial and error, in developing the appropriate density of naturalized areas. At Briarwood we learned that in planting fescue, we needed to use less seed per square foot than was recommended to achieve the desired look and feel. But I suggest that when properly done, naturalized areas provide the benefits that Paul Voykin touted more than 50 years ago. They save significant amounts of money. They add beauty to the course and make it appear less artificial. They create a better habitat for wildlife. As we have added natural areas, more small animals have a place to live. This attracts other animals and birds so that,for example, we now have nesting Hawks living on our grounds. . I concede that there are a few more delays looking for potentially lost balls, although not nearly to the degree suggested by Jeff. But I suggest that, properly placed, these areas add far more than they take away through occasional delays caused by extremely errant shots. I know that our membership feels the same.
Shelly, (if I may call you that!)
First, a personal Paul Voykin story. Dick Nugent once sent a 25 year old me over to BW in his stead, unannounced, which displeased them. Dick would deduct and hour from his fee for a good country club lunch, so we toured the course and then had lunch. The committee ordered some wonderful sounding stuff, but when the waiter got around to me, Paul said, "The grilled cheese is good here." I proceeded to order the grilled cheese, LOL>
I remember that article, and when I first started my business in TX, found a few master plans, where the property had the room to take turf out of play. Few ever did, from memory. It is more in vogue now.
As to how many balls get lost, there is more info out there now as to shot dispersion, and I will stand by my stats. I have played my own courses, often with triple row irrigation, and about 70 yard wide play corridors and find at least one member of the group (and these are B players, not D players) finds the junk at that width
on every full length tee shot hole......and I mean every hole. I started interpolating shot dispersion data to guess what it would take to half and quarter that.
Obviously, a private club with more A and B vs. C and D players can trend to the narrower without as much concern as to speed of play, even though I not all clubs are made up of better players. On a public course, better to err on the turf side vs. the native side when in doubt. For almost any course, to "hit it, find it, and hit it again" requires about 75-80 yards between the trees/natives about 150-225 off the tee, narrower at the tee and flaring out to that width. Even then, I have been taken to task by Ken Moun here repeatedly as not providing enough width.
In the field, even if using that data as a guideline, every hole is a unique retrofit project, considering place in round, hole length and features, topo, wind direction, ground features, existing sprinkler system and ease of expansion if needed, etc.