December 2010 - Parks & Recreation - 74

the Grass is Not Always Greener

ounterintuitive though it may seem, a " natural " grass field may not be more environmentally friendly than a synthetic turf alternative.
Though grass fields may appear to be cheaper and greener, they require water, fertilizer,
mowing, and periodic rest. On the other hand, turf fields are
made of synthetic materials, can be costly to install, and require disposal and replacement after several years of wear.
So which is better for the environment?
BASF chemical company recently attempted to resolve that
ongoing question. The company sponsored a study comparing
the environmental and economic impact of synthetic turf fields
with natural grass fields. The BASF Eco-Efficiency Analysis
(EEA) measured life-cycle environmental impacts and life-cycle costs for AstroTurf systems and natural grass sports fields.
The study evaluated the environmental impact of the production, use, and disposal of each system in the areas of energy
and resource consumption, emissions, toxicity and risk potential, and land use. The EEA also evaluated the life cycle costs
by calculating costs related to materials, labor, manufacturing,
waste disposal, and energy. The eco-efficiency analysis was
conducted over 18 months and was verified by NSF International, a non-profit, non-governmental organization.
The report compared natural grass playing surfaces to
several synthetic playing surfaces manufactured by AstroTurf, including the GameDay Grass MT41 fi eld, a system
representative of the most common fi eld installed in the
United States over the past decade. The environmental burden was measured in 11 categories,
some of which included primary
energy consumption, raw material consumption, g reenhouse gas emissions, ozone

70 Parks & Recreation

DECEMBER 2010

www.NRPA .ORG

depletion potential, and risk potential. Economic metrics
for the study included the real costs of creating and delivering the fi nished product, future costs, and costs having an
ecological aspect.
Among the major fi ndings of the study were that the average life cycle costs over 20 years of a natural grass field are 15
percent higher than synthetic alternatives, even when factoring in a replacement synthetic turf field during that time. As for
environmental impact, turf fields compared similarly to natural
grass fields capable of only half the playing time availability
per year. Moreover, in terms of consumption of raw materials,
even the best natural grass alternatives use about twice the
resources as turf fields, according to BASF.
The BASF EEA found that overall air emissions in the categories of acidification, photochemical ozone creation potential,
ozone depletion, and greenhouse gasses were fewer in AstroTurf surfaces than in natural grass fields which supported less
than 300 hours (100 events) per year of events. Synthetic turf
fields such as those produced by AstroTurf also generate less
solid waste overall, with grass fields sometimes accounting
for over four times as much. Land use impact was significantly
less with synthetic fields.
In terms of risk potential, synthetic fields displayed a higher overall potential for risk, but BASF emphasizes that this category is a complex, multi-component measure that requires
closer examination of the full analysis. BASF says that toxicity
potential shows that natural grass fields which support fewer
than 400 hours (130 events) per year can have a higher human
health impact than AstroTurf fields.
Ultimately, BASF says its study clearly shows that synthetic turf alternatives, even factoring in a replacement field, have
significantly reduced environmental impact and life cycle costs
compared to natural grass fields over a 20-year period.


shuttERstoCk

Turf vs. grass study reveals some advantages for turf fields

December 2010 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of December 2010 - Parks & Recreation