• Overview
• Food
• Baby Care
• Hazards & Threats
• News
• Our Purpose
• Prevention
• Products
• Sustainability & Lifestyle
• All Articles
• All Videos

Blog

New York City’s Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR) has become increasingly reliant on synthetic turf as a replacement for asphalt and natural grass athletic fields across the city.

Through the installation of the “new generation” of synthetic turf, DPR seeks to increase community access to fields as well as to solve the maintenance challenges of grass and the aesthetic and safety problems associated with asphalt.

This surface offers all-weather playability and lower maintenance costs than grass; however, synthetic turf has some negative environmental impacts and requires a significant capital investment. The important environmental benefits of natural turf, such as its ability to absorb and filter rainwater and pollutants, and to decrease the impact of the urban heat island effect, must be considered in the debate. In addition, DPR’s current process for evaluating the appropriateness of synthetic turf installation requires increased community input. New Yorkers for Parks (NY4P), the only citywide parks advocacy organization, conducted interviews with practitioners, community members, academics and representatives from the Parks Department in researching synthetic turf. This in-depth, independent analysis will examine the financial and environmental costs of natural vs. synthetic turf, as well as the implications for usage, maintenance, health and safety. Finally, the report will assess the current community input processes and offer policy recommendations toward the best use of this new technology.

Synthetic Turf: A Growing Trend
In 1998, the Parks Department began using synthetic turf to replace asphalt and grass athletic fields throughout the city and has since become the largest municipal buyer of turf in the country.¹ Citing benefits such as decreased maintenance requirements, all-weather play, and lower long-term costs than natural turf, the Parks Department is embracing the new generation of synthetic turf. Opponents of this initiative argue that the installation costs of synthetic turf are too high, placing an undue burden on the city’s capital budget. Environmental arguments play a key role in the debate, with opponents stressing the ecological and psychological benefits of natural grass.

Maintenance Challenges of Athletic Fields

With a limited budget, an increasingly diminished staff, and a heavily used park system, DPR has faced a challenge in keeping up with maintenance. Properly maintained natural grass fields require the following: regular mowing and spraying for weeds, irrigation, and daily trash and glass pick-ups. Ideally, they should be closed for a period of time to allow the grass to rest. (One of the few benefits of asphalt fields is that they are easily maintained, needing only occasional patching of cracks and holes.) The growing popularity of soccer—a particularly punishing sport when it comes to grass—has intensified the need for regular maintenance of grass fields.

Park managers and horticulturists agree that a natural turf field must be closed to the public at regular intervals in order to keep the grass healthy. The debate of access vs. green fields presents a challenge for policy makers. The Central Park Conservancy closes fields all winter until April, and during the spring and summer, fields are closed on a rotating basis for rehabilitation.² The Prospect Park Alliance also closes their fields during winter, the most damaging season for grass. But DPR is hesitant to close fields at neighborhood parks for any amount of time due to the demand for play time and the impracticality of securely closing the fields.

Synthetic Turf—A New Alternative

Since Chelsea Park in Manhattan became home to New York City’s first synthetic field in 1998, DPR has installed the surface at an increasing number of parks each year. In 2001, Mayor Bloomberg pledged to address the shortage of athletic facilities by seeking out asphalt fields that could be replaced with synthetic turf.³ The Parks Department expanded this initiative to include not only asphalt but also natural turf ballfields that were heavily used and difficult to maintain. As of August 2005, the Department had installed synthetic turf at 44 parks, with plans for installations at 35 more.⁴

Since beginning its synthetic turf program, the Parks Department has been contracting primarily with the manufacturers FieldTurf and AstroPlay for synthetic turf installations. These surfaces were designed to replicate the look and feel of natural grass and represent a giant leap forward from traditional AstroTurf, which was a hard, carpet-like surface developed in the 1960s.⁵ AstroTurf produced new injuries to athletes such as “turf toe”, caused by a player’s cleat getting caught in the turf, which had virtually no give.⁶ FieldTurf is widely praised as a great improvement over traditional AstroTurf and, judging from its popularity, has largely been able to overcome AstroTurf ’s bad reputation. AstroPlay, created by the makers of AstroTurf, has also grown its market share in the past few years. In 1998, AstroPlay had only five fields in the country, but by 2003, the number was up to 300.⁷

DPR cites numerous benefits of synthetic turf: year-round use due to its drainage capabilities, decreased maintenance costs, versatility of the types of sports it can accommodate, and environmental benefits, since it requires no pesticides, herbicides, mowing or watering. Synthetic turf also has aesthetic benefits—it never suffers during dry seasons or storms, and it is uniformly green.

Environmental Impacts

Perhaps the most contested aspect of synthetic turf is its potential impact on the environment. The Parks Department states the following ecological benefits of synthetic turf: the crumb rubber base is made from recycled tires (the average soccer field uses 27,000 tires); synthetic fields do not require the pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers that grass needs to stay healthy; and resources are conserved by the avoidance of mowing (use of fossil fuels) and watering.⁸ However, synthetic turf contributes to the urban heat island effect by absorbing sunlight and emitting heat. Additionally, removing grass takes away habitats that serve birds and plant life in the city.

The environmental benefits of synthetic turf may not be as significant as DPR claims. Though grass needs to be watered to stay healthy, synthetic turf also performs better when watered. Watering decreases static cling, helps to wash away bacteria and fluids that may be on the fields⁹, and helps to cool the often high temperatures of synthetic turf, at least temporarily. ¹⁰ DPR uses pesticides and herbicides sparingly on natural grass, so the conservation of chemicals through the use of synthetic turf likely has minimal effects.¹¹

Urban Heat Island Effect

The replacement of natural turf with synthetic contributes to the urban heat island effect. Urban heat islands are created when grass and trees are replaced by impervious surfaces like rooftops and asphalt, which absorb heat.¹² Summer temperatures in New York City are approximately seven degrees higher than surrounding areas due to this effect.¹³Urban heat islands increase demand for energy (particularly air conditioning), intensify air pollution, and increase heat-related health problems.¹⁴ A 2005 study of mitigation strategies found that increasing vegetation has a great effect on reducing temperatures and recommends planting street trees to provide the greatest cooling potential by area.

Not only does removing natural turf exacerbate the urban heat island effect – synthetic turf fields absorb rather than reflect sunlight, causing them to emit heat. In 2002, Brigham Young University undertook a preliminary study comparing temperatures at two newly installed fields—one FieldTurf and one sand-based natural turf.

Initial results showed that the surface temperature of the synthetic field was, on average, 39 degrees higher than the natural turf and 8 degrees higher than asphalt. At its hottest point, the synthetic turf was 86.5 degrees hotter than grass. The study also found that cooling the synthetic turf with water had very little effect on its temperature. ¹⁶ Similar results were found by researchers at Penn State, who examined the surface temperatures of several different brands of synthetic turf. On FieldTurf, the difference between surface and air temperatures was 37 degrees.¹⁷

Habitat

Natural turf not only cools the city; it offers habitats for insects, plants, and other organisms, and provides food for birds. Hundreds of birds migrate through New York City and depend on parks for resources. Many municipal parks are recommended bird-watching sites by NYC Audubon¹⁸, and the organization has publicly opposed the proposal to install synthetic turf at Cadman Plaza Park, citing the harmful effects it would have on the food supply for birds and other wildlife.¹⁹ Removing natural turf, no matter how deteriorated it has become, is damaging to the environment and to the city’s ecosystem. Though synthetic fields have drainage systems, they do not contain microorganisms that can break down pollutants. Additionally, rainwater is not absorbed—it simply drains through the field and runs into storm sewers.

Clearly, well-maintained natural turf benefits the environment by reducing the urban heat island effect, filtering rainwater and pollution, and providing habitats for birds and insects. Synthetic turf offers none of these benefits.

Health and Safety Effects

Though studies have compared the safety of synthetic fields to natural grass fields, most are outdated, relying on data from the days of AstroTurf. One of the few studies applicable to this report was published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine and compares high school football injuries over a five-year period on FieldTurf and natural grass. Results show that similarities exist between the two surfaces, but that athletes experienced different types of injuries, necessitating further study. For example, FieldTurf players had higher incidences of non-contact injuries, surface (skin) injuries, musclerelated trauma, and injuries during warmer temperatures. Natural turf players had higher incidences of ligament injuries, long-term injuries, and head and neural trauma.²⁰

Some of those who oppose synthetic turf fear that the use of crumb rubber in the base, aside from posing an environmental challenge when it comes to disposal, could lead to the leaching of dangerous chemicals.²¹ Results thus far are inconclusive. An additional concern is the sand that is mixed with crumb rubber to create the base of some synthetic turf fields. Sprinturf, one leading manufacturer of synthetic turf, commissioned an independent study that found that bacteria counts of infill containing sand and rubber were 50,000 times higher than infill containing only rubber. The company has offered free lifetime sanitization to those customers who have purchased the rubber and sand infill and is starting a new line of synthetic turf called “SandFree”.²²

Though FieldTurf has not proven to be unsafe, it is still a young technology. No precedent exists to show how FieldTurf will behave when it begins to deteriorate. Whether this funding will come out of the expense or capital budget depends on how the fields decline and how quickly they are replaced. Because the Parks Department’s budget varies with the political cycle, the availability of funding to replace decaying fields is not guaranteed.

Proponents of synthetic turf fields tout the reduction of allergy and asthma triggers. The removal of natural pollens and grasses may be beneficial to children and adults with these afflictions. However, the opposing side points to the potential toxicity of recycled tires and silicon. These health impacts need to be studied further in order to draw decisive conclusions.

NY4P offers the following recommendations to ensure that synthetic turf remains a safe option: 

• Include maintenance plans and cost-benefit analyses in requests for capital funding for athletic fields so that educated funding decisions are made.

The safety of athletes and children is compromised when synthetic turf is allowed to deteriorate. Provide City Council and other entities that appropriate moneys for athletic field projects with a specific cost- benefit analysis so that educated funding decisions are made. Fold maintenance plans into capital requests for athletic fields so that funding will be available to replace turf segments as needed.

• Take advantage of recent turf installations—engage in formal studies that examine the benefits and challenges of synthetic turf.

DPR is in a good position to lead the way with studies of the long-term viability of synthetic turf technology. With the recent installation of these fields, DPR can seek funding to evaluate the multiple issues this report addresses—the health, safety, maintenance and other potential impacts of synthetic turf use. Partner with a university in undertaking such a study.

• Include safety information on signage at synthetic turf fields.

Many athletes are unfamiliar with the “new generation” of synthetic turf. Improve safety by notifying users what dangers to look out for before using synthetic fields, such as loose seams that could create a trip hazard. Users with questions or issues should be directed to 311.

Resources:

1. Berger, Joseph. “Falling (Safely) for Artificial Turf.” The New York Times. 20 March 2004. Retrieved Nov. 2005
2. Personal Interview. Doug Blonsky, President, Central Park Conservancy. 7 Dec. 2005.
3. “2004 Campaign Accountability Statement. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York”, City of New York. Retrieved Oct. 2005
4. Marritz, Ilya. “’Turf ’ War Erupts Over So-Called Dust Bowl in Cadman Plaza.” New York Sun Aug 11, 2005. Retrieved Oct. 2005 
5. “AstroTurf ”, Wikipedia. Retrieved Nov. 2005
6. Ibid.
7. Chan, Erin. “Cows Can’t Eat It, But Ball Fields Are Getting It.” The New York Times 26 Oct. 2003. Retrieved Oct. 2005 
8. Personal letter from Commissioner Benepe to Christian DiPalermo, Executive Director, NY4P. 16 Sept. 2005.
9. Personal Interview. Dr. A.J. Powell, Jr., Extension Specialist, Turf; Plant and Soil Science Department, University of Kentucky. 28 Nov. 2005.
10. McNitt, Andrew S. and Dianne Petrunak. “Evaluation of Playing Surface Characteristics of Various In-Filled Systems.” Pennsylvania State University, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences. 2006.
11. Department of Parks & Recreation document. “Synthetic Turf Ballfields – 2004”, courtesy of DPR, Operations. 15 Dec. 2005.
12. Rosenzweig, Cynthia. “Mitigating New York City’s Heat Island with Urban Forestry, Living Roofs, and Light Surfaces,” Columbia University and Hunter College, New York, NY; and W. Solecki, L. Parshall, S. Gaffin, B. Lynn, R. Goldberg, J. Cox, and S. Hodges. Presented 31 Jan. 2006.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid, and “Heat Islands”, ScienCentralNews. Retrieved Dec. 2005 from sciencentral.com
15. Ibid.
16. Williams, C. Frank, and Gilbert E. Pulley. “Synthetic Surface Heat Studies”, Brigham Young University, 2002. Retrieved Nov. 2005
17. McNitt, Andrew S. and Dianne Petrunak. “Evaluation of Playing Surface Characteristics of Various In-Filled Systems.” Pennsylvania State University, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences. 2006.
18. New York City Audubon. “Places to Bird,” Retrieved Dec. 2005
19. Personal letter from E.J. McAdams, Executive Director, NYC Audubon, to Commissioner Benepe. 16 Dec. 2005
20. Meyers, Michael C., PhD, FACSM and Bill S. Barnhill, MD. “Incidence, Causes and Severity of High School Football Injuries on FieldTurf Versus Natural Grass: A Five Year Prospective Study,” American Journal of Sports Medicine 32: 1626-1638. 2004.
21. Chalker-Scott, Linda, PhD. “Rubber – The Reality.” Ransfords Equestrian Surfaces. Retrieved April 2006
22. “Sprinturf goes sand-free; offers decontamination free to existing customers.” Athletic Turf News. 20 Mar 2006. Retrieved April 2006

Print this page | Email a friend