Is ‘trees-over-turf’ science lying to you? 

Every few years, a study comes along that makes you pause, not because it is wrong, but because you already know how it’s going to be used.

A recent paper using deep learning and street-view imagery concluded that visible trees are associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk. In comparison, grass and other low-lying vegetation are associated with a higher risk. The authors suggest that public health investments should prioritize trees over turf.

Cue the headlines and policy memos. Cue the quiet groan from anyone who manages green space for a living.

Nobody in the golf business is anti-tree. Trees reduce heat, filter air, buffer noise and, yes, help people recover from stress, which is not controversial. The frustrating part is not that trees matter, but the implication that turf is somehow the problem.

Most of this research measures stress recovery after exposure, not how people experience landscapes day to day. Subjects are first stressed, then view environments, and researchers measure how quickly their physiology returns to baseline. That is useful information, but it is just a narrow slice of reality.

People do not experience golf courses, parks and neighborhoods the way lab subjects experience video clips. They move through them and choose where they feel comfortable. They linger in places that feel open and safe. That is where open natural turf quietly earns its keep.

Wide fairways and open lawns consistently score high for perceived safety, ease and comfort. You can see where you are going and who or what is around you. Nothing is pressing in from the edges, which may not show up as strongly on a heart-rate monitor, but it matters to real people in real spaces.

This is the nuance of turfgrass that keeps getting lost. Trees tend to calm the nervous system, but turf tends to calm the mind. They are not interchangeable, and one is not a substitute for the other.

What makes the current debate especially irritating is that this ground has already been covered by research the golf industry helped support. More than 25 years ago, a United States Golf Association-sponsored study examined stress recovery by exposing participants to simulated drives through either nature-dominated or building-dominated environments. The results showed faster recovery and even a stress “immunization” effect from nature-rich scenes.

But that work did not declare grass harmful or argue for trees at the expense of open space. It emphasized visual coherence, balance and the relationship between built and natural elements, concepts superintendents deal with every day.

Middle ground

Golf courses have always lived in that middle ground. Fairways framed by trees, natural vegetation or water. Shade without confinement and openness without exposure. That balance — not the vegetation type alone — is where people feel most at ease.

Yet modern studies, armed with millions of images and powerful algorithms, risk turning different landscapes into blunt talking points. The authors usually acknowledge that turfgrass may serve as a proxy for urban sprawl , but the lived experience is not fully captured. Unfortunately, that discussion rarely survives the trip from scientific journal to newspaper headline. What survives is the simplified message: trees good, turf questionable.

Superintendents know where that road leads because perception becomes policy. Policy becomes pressure, and suddenly, turfgrass is no longer a managed surface with social, recreational and environmental value. It becomes “low-value green.” That is not what science says, but it is exactly how it is often used.

So, yes, trees provide a protective canopy designed for shade and structure. But stop pretending that turf is the villain in a public health story that is more complicated than a pixel count. Landscapes with turf deserve more nuance than an algorithm can see from the curb.