NEWS
Turf Talk: The Environmental Cost of Artificial Fields
As towns across the country, and Fairfield County, explore upgrades to athletic facilities, artificial turf often appears to be a modern, attractive option — low-maintenance, cost-effective, weather resistant, and durable. However, installing synthetic playing fields can have hidden long-term environmental, health, and financial costs that impact the entire community.
Environmental Impact: Artificial Turf vs. Natural Grass
Natural grass fields and green spaces function as vital ecological components, providing habitat, supporting biodiversity, and facilitating critical soil and water processes. In contrast, synthetic turf systems create a poorly permeable and biologically inert surface that eliminates habitat and disrupts local ecosystems. Unlike natural plantings that support pollinators, birds, and beneficial insects, artificial turf contributes to biodiversity loss. Artificial turf impedes natural infiltration, increasing surface runoff and reducing groundwater recharge, both key processes that support watershed health and climate resilience. This is particularly concerning in areas near wetlands, flood zones, or drinking water sources.
What Is Artificial Turf Made Of?
Artificial turf is composed of several synthetic components designed to mimic the appearance and feel of natural grass. The primary component is the plastic grass fibers, typically made from polyethylene, polypropylene, or nylon, which are all petroleum-based polymers. These fibers are attached to a backing layer, often made of polyurethane or latex, which provides structure and durability. To keep the synthetic grass fibers upright and provide cushioning, an infill material is added between the blades.
Traditional infill often consists of crumb rubber (banned in Westport in 2018) made from recycled tires, or silica sand. However, in response to environmental and health concerns, alternate organic infill alternatives have been developed, such as cork, coconut husk (coir), olive pits, and thermally treated wood fibers. These natural materials offer improved cooling properties, reduced chemical exposure, and enhanced biodegradability, though they may require more frequent maintenance and have a shorter lifespan compared to synthetic infills. Some systems also include shock pads beneath the turf for additional impact absorption.
Health and Pollution Concerns
Artificial turf carries significant environmental (and health risks) as the plastic materials degrade over time, releasing hazardous chemicals into nearby soils and waterways. Concerns include potential contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), heavy metals including lead and zinc, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) — all of which can threaten human health and aquatic ecosystems. As the turf breaks down, it sheds microplastics, which are easily transported by wind and water, infiltrating storm drains and accumulating in soil. A study in Spain found that artificial grass fibers made up 15% of plastic debris larger than 5 mm within one kilometer of the shoreline.
Turf and the Urban Heat Island Effect
Synthetic turf contributes to the urban heat island effect. Unlike natural vegetation, which cools the air, artificial turf retains solar heat. Surface temperatures can exceed 120–160°F on sunny days, significantly increasing the risk of heat-related illnesses for users. A report by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation found that surface temperatures on an artificial turf field were 35°F to 42°F higher than those on natural grass. VOC emissions are especially problematic in high temperatures, further impacting air quality and posing respiratory risks, particularly for young children and athletes who spend extended periods on these heated surfaces. Additionally, numerous studies have found that athletes playing on artificial turf may face a higher risk of certain injuries such as abrasions, ‘turf burns,’ and some non-contact musculoskeletal injuries.
The Financial Reality: Hidden Costs and Waste
While the initial cost requirements of artificial turf may seem minimal, lifecycle cost analyses often reveal a different financial picture. In addition to installation costs (with modified drainage systems often required), there are also maintenance costs to consider — fluffing, redistributing, replacing and shock testing infill; periodic disinfection of the materials; seam repairs and infill replacement; and watering to lower temperatures on hot days. The material lifecycle of artificial turf is also a major concern with an average lifespan of 8–10 years. The disposal of worn-out turf then presents an additional cost and a significant environmental burden. Most synthetic fields are non-biodegradable and difficult to recycle, often ending up in landfills where they contribute to the mounting crisis of plastic pollution.
A Better Alternative: Organically Managed Natural Grass Fields
Alternatively, organically managed natural grass fields offer a truly sustainable solution that provides long-term ecological, recreational, and economic benefits. Unlike synthetic turf, healthy natural grass sequesters carbon, enhances flood resilience by improving soil infiltration and water retention, and can offer habitat for birds and insects — key components of a thriving local ecosystem. These living landscapes also contribute to urban cooling through evapotranspiration and reduce stormwater runoff, improving water quality and ecosystem health.
Proven Cost Savings and Community Benefits
Implementing an organic management program requires a site-specific plan focused on optimizing soil health through practices such as aeration, compost applications, and the use of natural fertilizers. Though the transition may involve upfront investments in soil testing and labor, over time, organically managed fields develop deeper root systems than those managed conventionally, making them more resilient to drought, disease, and heavy foot traffic. Studies have shown that water usage can decrease significantly, and fewer synthetic inputs are needed, leading to lower chemical exposure for users and the surrounding environment.
Financially, organic field management is proving to be cost-competitive. A study conducted in New York by Grassroots Environmental Education found that once established, organic turf management programs can cost up to 25% less than conventional programs due to reductions in synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation needs. As more municipalities adopt these practices, the long-term cost savings and environmental advantages make organically managed natural grass a compelling alternative to synthetic turf.
Conclusion: It’s Time to Rethink Turf
Artificial turf may promise convenience, but its environmental, health, and financial downsides make it a poor fit for communities seeking long-term sustainability. Natural grass fields, when organically managed and properly drained, offer a healthier, more climate resilient, and cost-effective alternative. As these decisions shape the future of our natural environment and community assets, including our schools, parks and waterways and shoreline, now is the time to get involved — speak up, stay informed, and help advocate for solutions that truly support the health of our community and the planet.