This discussion reminds me of a recent article in Links Magazine about the Old Works course in Anaconda Mt., the point of which seemed to be that Old Works was perhaps a waste in a town with too few people and no real chance of ever developing a consistent tourist trade.
I am a big fan of public-access courses in the middle of nowhere. In my experience they are more affordable, get less play, play faster, and have a loyal and appreciative clientele who know the course and treat it with respect (like members of a private club might). Part of their charm is that the only people that play these courses are locals and those that made an effort to get there.
Because of budget constraints (Old Works excepted)of a truly small market, architects might be forced to work with what they have, instead of staining the land with fake waterfalls, island greens, and over-graded and out of place flat-as-a-football-field fairways. And, because land is aplenty in the middle of nowhere, the architect might work with land suited for a golf course instead of shoe-horning a course into the last available space.
Plus, if we weighed accessibility when considering great course architecture, we should gut the lists of the private courses (and ultra-high end "public" courses like Pebble). I can drive or fly to the 'middle of nowhere' and play, but may never get to play the Los Angeles Country Club, which, as I write this, is only a long iron away.