A Swedish study has concluded that, based on a life-cycle analysis, synthetic turf football pitches are better than natural turf from a sustainability perspective, at least as long as the synthetic turf material is recycled and the natural turf is cut by means of fossil fuel-powered grass-cutting equipment.
PhD student at Linköping University (LiU), Mikael Säberg, studied the subject, as there isn’t much research on the topic despite there being a great deal of interest from the municipalities.
Using life-cycle analysis, Säberg and his colleagues at the Department of Management and Engineering (IEI) at LiU investigated the environmental impact of production, maintenance and decommissioning of synthetic turf pitches compared to natural turf pitches over a 10-, 20- and 30-year period. The researchers showed that synthetic turf pitches are a more environmentally sustainable option – with some reservations.
According to the researchers, natural turf exhibited the highest overall environmental impacts over the operational lifespan. They claim that the global warming potential was 30.6 kg CO2 eq/m2 while the synthetic turf reached 15.6 kg CO2 eq/m2.
During the construction phase, synthetic turf generated significant emissions, mainly from material production. In the use phase, natural turf showed the greatest impacts due to diesel consumption and fertiliser application.
At the end-of-life stage, synthetic turf’s sand and infill were reused, while the turf carpet and shock pad were incinerated for energy recovery. However, without recycling, synthetic turf would represent the highest environmental burden among the evaluated alternatives. Implementing effective recycling and energy recovery strategies is essential to mitigate its environmental impact. Furthermore, sourcing turf materials locally, combined with substituting conventional maintenance equipment with electric robotic alternatives, can further reduce overall environmental impacts.
Better guidance
These results can provide guidance for municipalities in northern climates investing in new football pitches. But at the same time, there are many aspects to consider, says Emma Lindkvist, assistant professor at LiU’s Department of Management and Engineering.
“First of all, you need to look at the purpose. In other words, how the pitch will be used. Only for actual games or for lots of training? If we’re talking about many hours of play with a lot of training, then synthetic turf is better because it lasts longer.”
In addition to better durability, synthetic turf can be played on all year round, which increases accessibility for sports clubs. Natural grass pitches can be played on only in the summer months.
Replacement
A synthetic turf pitch has a lifespan of about ten years before the top layer will be in for a replacement. Natural grass pitches, on the other hand, are laid once and maintained continually. Maintenance of the different pitch types differs and plays a major role in their environmental impact.
“In the production phase, synthetic turf has the greatest impact. But natural turf has the greatest emission factors linked to maintenance. It is about dressing, fertilising, you have to cut the grass several times a week and it should be aerated at regular intervals. So there are many processes involved compared to synthetic turf,” says Säberg.
Maintenance of synthetic turf is much more modest and involves brushing once or twice a week, possibly harrowing once or twice a month and an annual deep cleaning of the granules between the straws.
The maintenance of a natural turf surface, on the other hand, is often done using petrol- or diesel-powered machines.
“What we can see is that synthetic turf production as well as natural turf maintenance can and needs to be improved in order to reduce emissions,” concludes Säberg.
Read the study
The study is available for our subscribers in our library on this page.
