What Turf is Right for Your Facility?

Conflicting reports and priorities make it difficult to choose. LPA researchers and landscape architects collaborated to explore the available research to develop strategies for evaluating the best athletic field surface to meet each project’s needs.

The choice of surface materials for new athletic fields will have ramifications for a facility’s construction budget, operation and maintenance costs, as well as the health and safety of its athletes. Picking the right turf can be a complex and confusing decision, with a wide array of often conflicting studies and analysis.

LPA’s Sustainability + Applied Research (S+AR) and Landscape Architecture teams recently partnered to help a large urban school district in California evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of turf systems for projects with different budgets and goals. Their research looked at natural, synthetic and hybrid turf systems for multisport fields, focusing on four key areas: cost/value, safety and health, sustainability and playability/potential hours of use.

The results provide a comprehensive overview of readily available information and research, including estimated life cycle costs and findings from published scientific and industry sources.

“The research is available to help facilities make informed decisions, based on their own priorities,” says LPA S+AR Research Manager Kimari Phillips. “Facility operators and designers can find the best turf system to meet each project’s short- and long-term goals.”

Each surface type examined — natural turf (100% grass), synthetic turf (100% synthetic fiber) and stitched hybrid turf (95% grass + 5% synthetic fiber) — presented distinct advantages and disadvantages.

While research is far from conclusive or consistent in many areas, clear takeaways emerge. Synthetic surfaces may be the most durable and low-maintenance system, but the carbon emissions and heat island effect may not align with the climate or sustainability goals of some facilities. Natural surfaces may offer the most environmental benefits, but they require significant maintenance to provide a safe playing surface.

“If you cannot maintain a natural grass field to the optimal level, then synthetic may be the way to go to reduce the number and severity of sport-related injuries due to player contact with the field surface,” Phillips says. “Facilities need to have the budget and staff to properly maintain a natural field.”

For many athletic fields, days-in-use becomes a key metric — when demand is high, it may not be cost-effective to select field surfaces that won’t be available after a rainstorm. A natural turf field may be the most economical to install and maintain, but it could be available approximately 53% fewer operable hours compared to synthetic turf fields and 25% less than hybrids, due to required field closure days for maintenance, renovation and post-rain drainage.

Conversely, in hot and sunny climates, natural turf might be a better option than synthetic turf fields that absorb more heat, often leading to surface temperatures that are many degrees hotter than grass.

“The hybrid surfaces don’t necessarily offer significant advantages, if there is daily demand, because the stitched systems behave similar to 100% grass systems and require similar downtime due to maintenance and weather,” Phillips says.

The research is still unclear on the effect of field surface choice on the risk of injury. Practice and coaching strategies play crucial roles. While some studies of professional football and soccer players found higher incidences of injuries on synthetic surfaces, the largest investigation on the incidence of all types of injuries associated with playing soccer on synthetic turf indicates that there is little to no difference between synthetic and natural turf fields, the report notes.

Similarly, additional scientific studies are needed to conclusively determine the safety, health and environmental impacts of many synthetic surfaces, including newer organic and synthetic infills, the LPA study concluded. The sports field design industry has also seen a large increase in the desirability of synthetic surfaces for baseball and softball fields with the manufacturers’ refinement of turf products that mimic ball bounce and the “feel” of the turf under cleats in infields, outfields and on warning tracks.

While the information may present different nuances, facilities can make informed decisions based on available data and their own priorities. LPA’s summary report provides a clear comparison of the surfaces, based on multiple variables that influence and contribute to planning considerations for an athletic field turf design.

KEY FINDINGS

COST/VALUE

Because synthetic turf can withstand the most hours of use, it has the lowest cost per hour of programmable use at approximately $96/hour (i.e., total + replacement costs divided by estimated programmable use hours). Natural and hybrid turf cost around 38% to 46% more per hour of use, approximately $132/hour and $140/hour, respectively. The range of costs for maintaining a natural turf field depends on factors like the frequency of use, types of sports played, condition of the field and staffing level.

In the long run, replacing “a new synthetic field would cost significantly less than the original because the basic design, foundation and drainage would already be provided” and are typically reused. With a 10-year life span, the cost per hour of use for natural and hybrid fields, respectively, is approximately 1.4 and 1.5 times higher than synthetic. The more playable hours a field can accommodate, the faster it pays for itself.

(Note: Comparisons are for new installations; renovations of existing fields may have higher or lower cost deltas depending on site-specific complexities.)

SAFETY AND HEALTH

LPA’s research took a holistic approach to comparing surface-related health and safety issues. In addition to the risk and severity of athletic injuries associated with different turf systems, the study examined heat-related safety and health concerns, material-related safety and chemicals of concern, and maintenance-related safety issues.

In each category, studies offer divergent findings, especially for injuries. In 18 studies of new-generation turf compared to natural grass, 72% found no difference in overall injury rates between playing surfaces. It is also important to acknowledge that “it is possible for a new, well-built and well-maintained synthetic turf field to provide more impact attenuation than a poorly maintained natural grass field.”

But there are other variables. On hot, sunny days, synthetic turf can become significantly hotter than natural grass and has the potential to contribute to urban heat island effect and heat-related illness.

SUSTAINABILITY

If maintained as recommended, natural turf fields “are the safest, coolest, healthiest, most sustainable surfaces available while also cleaning and infiltrating water and oxygenating air.” However, if not maintained as recommended, natural turf field conditions can lead to unsafe hardness, uneven surfaces or other safety risks.

Water use, stormwater management and the urban heat island effect are all important considerations when evaluating the sustainable aspects of the different turf systems. The overall carbon footprint of natural, synthetic and hybrid turf athletic fields can vary significantly based on several factors, the report notes. These include infill coating and organic properties, production and installation, field management and maintenance practices, end-of-life disposal, frequency of use, local climate, the longevity of the turf system in use and other factors.

Synthetic fields offer the longest life span but typically can have a larger negative carbon impact due to their fossil fuel ingredients, emissions during manufacturing, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as they break down over years of use and their disposal in landfills. The synthetic turf industry is committed to keeping PFAS chemicals out of their products, and some manufacturers are making progress with zero-waste-to-landfill and take-back programs, as well as testing methods to recycle synthetic turf fields at the end of their service life.

Natural and hybrid turf fields have the environmental benefit of reducing carbon emissions from other sources by sequestering CO2. Yet natural and hybrid turf often require more intensive labor and some level of GHG consumption to maintain, mow, dethatch and periodically recondition, in addition to the potential periodic use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and soil conditioners. A living sports turf consumes surprisingly large volumes of water that must be mechanically irrigated with electric booster pumps to properly maintain a green, healthy sports surface.

PLAYABILITY/PROGRAMMABLE USE HOURS

Analysis of “playability” focuses on weather resilience, surface performance, player perceptions, policies and opinions related to recent events and, most important, field versatility and usage. Facilities need to evaluate the frequency and intensity of use, maintenance practices, weather conditions, climate and the athletic gear used on the surface to determine which factors are most relevant to their decision.

One of the most important factors for selecting a field type must be the end user, which directly relates to hours of operation and the sports played on the surfaces. Ultimately, synthetic turf systems can almost eliminate field closures or “downtime” and offer the most operational hours, the report found.