Artificial turf football pitches are better than natural turf from a sustainability perspective – at least as long as the artificial turf material is recycled and the natural turf is cut using fossil fuel-powered lawn mowers. This is demonstrated by researchers at Linköping University in a new study comparing the environmental impact of the different pitches with the help of life cycle analyses.

“The Nordic climate is tough on football pitches and there isn’t much research on the subject. But there is a great deal of interest from the municipalities as regards sustainability and weighing artificial turf against natural turf, says Mikael Säberg, PhD student at Linköping University (LiU), and first author of the study, published in the scientific journal Cleaner Environmental Systems.

Using life cycle analyses, Mikael Säberg and his colleagues at the Department of Management and Engineering (IEI), at LiU, investigated the environmental impact of production, maintenance and decommissioning of artificial turf pitches compared to natural turf pitches over a 10-, 20- and 30-year period. The researchers showed that artificial turf pitches are a more environmentally sustainable option – with some reservations.

Their results can provide guidance for municipalities i 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 artificial turf is better because it lasts longer.”

In addition to better durability, artificial 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.

An artificial turf pitch has a lifespan of about ten years. It then needs to be replaced, due to the plastic in the turf and the damping material being worn out. Natural grass pitches, on the other hand, are laid once and maintained continuously. Maintenance of the different pitch types differs and plays a major role in their environmental impact.

“In the production phase, artificial turf has the greatest impact. But natural turf has the greatest emission factors linked to maintenance. It is about dressing, fertilising, you have to mow the grass several times a week and it should be aerated at regular intervals. So there are many processes involved compared to artificial turf,” says Mikael Säberg.

Maintenance of an artificial 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 granule between the straws.

But what about the reservations? Well, an artificial turf pitch is more environmentally sustainable only if the rubber granule between the straws is collected and reused, and the old turf is sent for heat recovery. The maintenance of a natural lawn is often done using petrol- or diesel-powered machines. But with electrified machinery it’s a whole new ball game, as natural turf then becomes the more environmentally friendly option.

“What we can see is that artificial turf production as well as natural turf maintenance can and needs to be improved in order to reduce emissions,” says Mikael Säberg,

The research was funded by, among others, the Kamprad Family Foundation.