Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass: A Case Study of Environmental Effects, Health Risks, Safety, and Cost

Abstract

While natural grass has been a reliable recreational surface for decades, artificial turf has gained popularity due to its durability, supposed ability to save water, and lower associated costs for municipalities and schools. Growing environmental and health concerns associated with artificial turf have prompted a necessary comparison of the environmental impact, chemical exposure, injury rates, surface heat, and costs of turf with natural grass. The township of Verona, New Jersey, engaged the PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies’ Green Teams Program interns to perform an environmental impact assessment, literature review, and cost–benefit analysis to determine if the township should restore an aging artificial turf field in the town to natural grass. The environmental impact assessment revealed concerns regarding artificial turf’s high emission profile, microplastic pollution, lack of permeability, and the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Natural grass’ high water usage was also identified as a drawback. The literature review revealed safety concerns of artificial turf regarding temperature disparities and no conclusive results regarding differences in overall injury rates. The artificial turf field in this case study was 182% hotter than the natural grass field when measured by an infrared thermometer during mid-day readings in June. The cost–benefit analysis revealed that natural grass offers a lower long-term expense over a 25-year period. Artificial turf has many benefits; however, natural grass was the recommended option when considering environmental sustainability, reduced chemical exposure, lower surface temperatures, and overall cost. The conclusions may further inform policy decisions and support the adoption of environmentally responsible and health-centered practices for sports fields across municipalities in New Jersey and beyond.

1. Introduction

Artificial turf was first installed in 1966 at Houston’s Astrodome, using ChemGrass, which later became known as AstroTurf. This initial turf consisted of a nylon carpet laid over compacted soil [1]. By the 1970s and 1980s, many stadiums replaced natural grass with AstroTurf because it was durable and able to handle high traffic [1]. Artificial turf continued to gain popularity throughout the 1970s and 1980s; however, by the late 1980s, concerns started to emerge about the turf’s potential to cause injuries to athletes on the field [1]. In 1976, second-generation synthetic turf was introduced, featuring longer fibers and a shock-absorbing pad beneath the carpet. The fibers were filled with silica sand to help them stand upright, and they also improve drainage [2]. While not widely adopted in the U.S., it laid the foundation for modern third-generation turf. Third-generation turf, developed by FieldTurf, headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, is similar to second-generation turf and uses infill material between vertical fibers [1]. However, it typically uses crumb rubber or a mix of crumb rubber infill and silica sand instead of pure sand [1].

Due to the benefits of artificial turf, such as durability, longevity, and perceived lower maintenance needs, many natural fields were replaced [1]. These advantages made turf a favorable choice for high-traffic sports venues and multi-purpose stadiums. However, growing environmental and health concerns have prompted a necessary comparison of artificial turf versus natural grass, especially relating to chemical exposure, injury rates, and sustainability [3]. Environmental issues such as the production of synthetic turf materials and their life cycle and the potential for chemical runoff have become a major issue in a time when environmental health is already at risk and sustainability is imperative [4]. With higher surface temperatures on artificial turf, combined with increased injury rates linked to harder playing surfaces, there has been general concern about the safety of artificial turf for players.

The township of Verona, New Jersey, engaged the PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies’ Green Teams Program interns to perform a cost–benefit analysis, literature review, and an environmental impact assessment to determine if the township should restore an aging artificial turf field in the town to natural grass. The Green Teams Program is a 10-week, paid, inclusive, summer internship program that pairs groups of five students with hosting organizations to address that organization’s sustainability challenges. This research was conducted as part of Verona Township’s Green Team project deliverables. The official deliverables included conducting a literature review on the health impacts and safety of artificial turf versus natural grass turfs, as well as performing a cost–benefit analysis and an environmental impact assessment (See

Table 1. Summary of artificial turf and natural grass advantages and disadvantages.

	Artificial Turf	Natural Grass
Environmental Impact	High overall environmental impact	Low–med overall environmental impact
Chemical Exposure	High hazardous chemicals	Low hazardous chemicals
Injury	Higher ankle and foot injuries; higher abrasions	Lower ankle and foot injuries; lower abrasions
Surface Heat	High surface heat	Low surface heat
Cost Analysis	More costly (25-year period)	Less costly (25-year period)

).

1.1. Sustainability

Artificial turf is made using synthetic polymers derived from fossil fuels, and this process is both energy- and water-intensive [5]. The top layer of artificial turf is made from synthetic petroleum-based polymers attached to a textile and latex backing with holes. The backing is often composed of polyurethane, latex rubber, polyethylene, polypropylene, or polyamide [6,7]. The common infill, which supports the turf fibers, is typically derived from recycled tires but can also use materials like thermoplastics, Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM), sand, or natural fibers like cork or coconut [6,7]. For shock absorption, the infill may be mixed with sand and laid over a shock pad, which is made from porous, elastic materials such as styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) or polyurethane (PUR). Below this, a subbase of sand and crushed rock with a drainage layer made from polypropylene or EPDM completes the structure [6,7]. The production of artificial turf begins with synthetic polymer pellets—polypropylene, polyethylene, or nylon—mixed with dyes and stabilizers, which are then shaped into grass-like strands. These strands are tufted or stitched into a textile base, coated with latex, and cured with heat [1,8]. After curing, the turf blades are cut, tested, and prepared for shipment. Once at the site, a drainage system is installed, followed by leveling and turf placement. Infill materials like tire crumb and sand are added to enhance stability [9].

Artificial turf is often highly regarded for the amount of water needed to maintain a natural turf field. While water is not required for the irrigation of artificial turf, it can be used to cool off turf when it overheats [4]. Otherwise, water is not required to maintain the field, which can save between 0.5–1 million gallons of water per year per average football field in the United States of America [4]. Still, water usage is significant during the manufacturing process [9].

Artificial turf acts as a semi- or fully impervious surface, limiting water infiltration due to synthetic grass blocking soil contact, low permeability of plastics, and the absence of natural transpiration [10]. Synthetic turf is discouraged from being installed in areas prone to flooding [11]. Long artificial turf has runoff levels comparable to asphalt (56%), while shorter turf allows for better drainage but still exceeds natural grass in runoff rates. With pelletized infill, as opposed to carpet-style, it is particularly vulnerable to flooding, since the infill material may become negatively buoyant and wash away [12]. Tests have shown plastic fibers and nitrates in turf runoff, further raising concerns over plastic pollution [12,13].

Plastic pollution, especially in the form of artificial turf, contributes heavily to overall plastic pollution, particularly pollution concerning microplastics. Microplastics persist in the environment and can end up in rivers and oceans through stormwater runoff. A study conducted in Spain showed that artificial turf fibers comprised up to 15% of plastic debris in aquatic environments [7]. Rainfall increases the dispersal of artificial turf to drainage water systems or water streams, which all end up in rivers or oceans [7]. In response to the health and safety risks that microplastics pose, the European Union has banned microplastics, including crumb rubber infill, which contains contaminants like PAHs, heavy metals, and PFAS [14]. Microplastics do not biodegrade, which means they can continue to exist in the environment for centuries [14]. Artificial turf also has high greenhouse gas emissions throughout its life cycle, emitting up to three times more CO₂ than natural grass [4]. Maintenance further adds pollution through cleaning solvents and regular infill replenishment, and additional emissions arise from turf coloring for multi-sport fields [15]. Air pollution from turf materials like EPDM also contributes to increases in associated emissions [9]. It is predicted that the greenhouse gas emissions from an artificial turf field will double when the components of the field are not recycled at the end of its life [4]. Since there are no proper recycling facilities for artificial turf, it is normally incinerated or dumped.

Natural grass fields offer environmental benefits like reducing surface temperatures, supporting biodiversity, reducing soil erosion, and acting as carbon sinks [4]. Installing grass requires soil testing and careful selection of grass species based on climate and maintenance needs [15]. For example, if irrigation is not a viable option for an area, it is important to choose a variety of grass that has high drought resistance, or if the area has very extreme winters and summers, it is important to consider grass varieties that are less sensitive to climate extremes [15]. However, natural grass is water-intensive, requiring up to 1 million gallons per year in the U.S. alone, making it costly in water-scarce areas [4]. Unlike artificial turf, natural grass helps reduce runoff, mitigate flooding, and ease urban heat, though it can flood under heavy rainfall [10]. In a study comparing natural grass to short and long artificial turf, natural grass was found to be more effective at slowly releasing infiltrated water and also storing the water [10]. Natural grass emits far fewer greenhouse gases than artificial turf [16]. One downside, however, to natural grass fields is the use of pesticides. Pesticides can cover a vast variety of compounds such as herbicides, insecticides, and more, and they are mainly used to protect vegetation from insects and reduce unwanted plant growth [16]. Pesticides pollute and negatively impact water, soil, and the surrounding environment, including harming animals and non-targeted plant life [16]. Pesticides are also dangerously prevalent in groundwater in over 43 states, which can take many years and USD to clean up, if at all possible [16]. Beyond harming ecosystems and affecting water supplies, pesticides also harm human health, add to air pollution, and kill necessary populations of microorganisms that contribute to good soil health [16]. Organic fertilizers, though sometimes less effective, offer a more environmentally friendly option [17]. Unfortunately, in terms of nutrient release time, organic fertilizers are unpredictable, which decreases their dependability [17]. It is important to note that the Township of Verona does not currently use pesticides.

1.2. Health Impacts

The use of artificial turf and tire crumb infill in sports fields and playgrounds has also raised significant concerns due to the presence of hazardous chemicals and metals such PFAS. PFAS are known to persist in the environment and can accumulate in human and animal tissues, leading to potential adverse health effects. Some of these documented effects include developmental issues, immune system dysfunction, liver damage, and an increased risk of certain cancers [18]. PFAS are highly toxic if inhaled and moderately toxic if ingested. PFAS exposure has also been linked to lower birth weight and higher cholesterol [18]. These chemicals, while not metabolized in humans, can be biotransformed from precursor compounds like 8:2 FTOH and PFOSA into PFOA and PFOS, increasing human exposure [18]. This biotransformation can alter gene expression, potentially heightening cancer risk. For example, the C8 study found high PFOA levels linked to thyroid disease, kidney cancer, and testicular cancer. A Massachusetts study found PFNA and PFOS levels in early pregnancy were associated with lower birth weight and higher preterm birth risk, which was corroborated by research in Denmark [18]. This information was kept hidden from the public for decades, which makes education about PFAS exposure even more imperative [19]. The lack of awareness surrounding PFAS and other chemicals associated with artificial turf can result in insufficient protective measures, making them more dangerous to human health and the health of the environment.

Research on the cancer risks of artificial turf, particularly due to chemicals in crumb rubber, has long been debated. Coppola et al. [20] found cancer risk levels below concern but noted that polycyclic aromatic amines (PAAs) in crumb rubber could pose a risk with long-term, frequent exposure in high heat. Some studies suggest PAAs are lymphomagens, but recent reviews refute this, showing no increased cancer rates, such as lymphoma, brain cancer, or leukemia, in turf users [21]. Additionally, studies by the Washington State Department of Health and the Dutch National Institute for Public Health found no link between artificial turf and cancer in vulnerable groups. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are generated when PFAS are burned at high temperatures, showed no significant differences in urine metabolites between players who practiced on artificial turf versus players who practiced on natural grass [21].

Synthetic grass fibers have also been found to contain high levels of lead, which prompted legal action and field replacements in California, as well as commitments from manufacturers and tighter restrictions to eliminate lead in their products [22]. Studies conducted by the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) highlight the findings of similar assessments by the Norwegian Environmental Agency and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Tire crumb infill, commonly used in artificial turf, contains PAHs, which are highly carcinogenic and less regulated than consumer products or toys [22]. High-aromatic oils used in tire manufacturing are significant sources of PAHs, which contribute to the total daily intake of these carcinogenic compounds. The levels of PAHs in tire crumb samples were quantified, and several previously unreported PAHs were identified [22]. Studies have shown that artificial turf has a high potential to leach toxic metals such as copper, zinc, cadmium, barium, manganese, and lead [22].

In addition to PFAS exposure contributing to adverse health impacts, injury on artificial turf should also be considered. Researchers have been investigating the difference in injury rates between artificial turf and natural grass since 1992, when John Powell published an article linking artificial turf surfaces to increased incidence of knee injuries in professional football [23]. Other researchers at the time published results similarly linking artificial turf to increased injury rates. Second- and third-generation artificial fields made significant changes to their designs, including adding a shock pad and infill, significantly softening the playing surfaces and decreasing injuries [24]. Studies on injury rates are complicated by a number of factors, including the size of the study, sex of participants, type of sport, level of play, weather, and maintenance of the playing surfaces. For instance, studies have found injury rates to be 1.8 times higher on unacceptably hard fields [25]. Few research articles have attempted to measure injury rates in their entirety, so the analysis in this report focused on comparing three major categories of injuries: lower extremity injuries (ankle, knee, foot, etc.), concussions, and abrasions.

While artificial turf is consistently found to have higher rates of abrasion than natural grass, studies tend to find no significant conclusive difference in overall injury rates in major categories. However, higher rates of ankle and foot injuries have also been found more consistently on artificial turf than natural grass [26]. Some sports see more of one type of injury on one surface, while other sports see no difference or more of that injury on another surface. It is well documented, for instance, that knee injuries are more common on artificial turf than natural grass in collegiate and professional football [27,28,29,30]. One study examining aggregated National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) data over ten years for football found that in competitions, athletes experienced posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries at 2.94 times the rate on artificial turf than natural grass [31]. That being said, NCAA soccer data over the same period found no difference in match injuries. They also found an 8.67 times higher anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury rate on natural grass during training [32]. Studies focusing on soccer teams often find no difference in overall lower extremity injury rates [33,34], with some also finding lower injury rates on artificial turf [35] and others finding higher rates of ACL injuries for women but not for men on artificial turf [36]. Large meta-analyses of cohort studies and studies examining injury data over many seasons, especially in professional- and elite-level sports, most often find no significant difference in overall lower extremity injury rates between artificial turf and natural grass [26,30,34,37,38]. Biomechanical studies also suggest that the peak pressure experienced by players is higher in some circumstances on artificial turf than on natural grass [39]. Both patterns could explain higher ankle and foot injuries on artificial turf.

Multiple studies have found that concussions occur more frequently on natural grass than on artificial turf [24,40,41]. However, this finding is not universal. A study looking at data from the 2012 to 2019 NFL regular seasons found that, on average, the risk of concussion on natural grass was 0.78 times lower compared to artificial turf [42], and a study with data from 24 universities over three seasons found no difference in concussion risk between field turf and natural grass [43], as analyzed from NFL data from 2012–2013. Data on the severity of concussions from different surfaces is similarly inconsistent [43,44]. Reported incidences of concussions due to head-to-surface interactions on artificial turf range from less than 6% to as high as 30% [24,45,46].

Although fewer scholarly research articles include and examine abrasions, the ones that exist overwhelmingly support the idea that artificial turf is more abrasive than natural grass and has been since its inception. Even products marketed as non-abrasive, while found to be less abrasive than their other artificial turf counterparts, were found to have higher rates of abrasions and other skin-related injuries than natural grass fields [40].

1.3. Heat Effects

Exertional heat illnesses (EHIs) are on the rise among high school athletes in the U.S. In the 5-year block from 2005 to 2009, more EHI deaths occurred in organized sports than in any other 5-year period over the past 35 years [47]. Heat-related illnesses can range from milder symptoms, such as heat cramps and heat exhaustion, to very dangerous pathologies such as dehydration and heat stroke [48]. Environmental factors like wind, humidity, air, and radiant temperatures affect heat dissipation in humans, contributing to EHIs [49]. The National Athletic Trainers Association and American College of Sports Medicine recommend using the wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) to assess field safety [50]. However, a study found that the National Weather Service WBGT underestimated on-site temperatures by ~0.67 °C (1.2 °F) [50]. Due to challenges in accurate temperature measurement, many organizations enforce strict heat guidelines for sports. For artificial turf fields, NYC Parks and Montgomery County Public Schools advise caution above 80 °F, limit practices above 90 °F to morning/evening, and restrict mid-day activities (91–104 °F) to one hour with water breaks every 20 min. Research shows that artificial turf surfaces are significantly hotter than natural grass. One study found turf temperatures exceeded asphalt by 37 °F and natural grass by 86.5 °F, prompting a recommended safety limit of 50 °C (122 °F) to avoid skin injury [51]. In a 2019 study, Division I football players trained on artificial turf (surface temperature: 67 °C/140 °F) and natural grass (33 °C/91 °F) in Tempe, Arizona. Despite lower solar radiation on the turf day, skin temperatures during exercise were significantly higher on turf, along with increased core temperatures, perceived exertion, and heat stress [52]. The Penn State Center for Sports Surface Research observed synthetic turf surface temperatures ranging from 140 °F to 170 °F in sunny conditions, influenced by fiber and infill materials. Black shock pads reached the highest temperatures, about 10 °C (18 °F) higher than the turf and infill [53]. Artificial turf’s higher temperatures can be attributed to factors like turf’s higher spectral reflectance, lower heat capacity, and a lack of water content. Natural grass, on the other hand, is composed of roughly 70% water, can be cooled through transpiration, and transfers more heat to the ground below [53,54]. Surface irrigation briefly cools synthetic turf but lasts only about 20 min due to hydrophobic infill materials [55].

2. Materials and Methods

Centennial Field is a 13-year-old artificial turf field that is reaching the end of its useful life. At the time this research was initiated, in June of 2024, Verona Township of New Jersey was weighing its options for replacing the field—either keeping the field as an artificial turf or converting it back to a natural grass field. As is the case with any municipal decision, Verona Township faced pressure from stakeholders and interest groups. In addition to external pressure, Verona also had to make the decision for the field while considering new stormwater ordinances that would require additional stormwater mitigation strategies under the reinstatement of artificial turf. To make an informed decision that considered all of the possible positive and negative impacts of artificial turf versus natural grass, Verona Township served as a hosting organization for the PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies’ Green Teams Program. Due to the pertinence and relevance of this research to sustainability efforts for municipalities in New Jersey and the rest of the country, this project was continued outside of the designated 10-week internship period to finalize the results, conclusions, and recommendations in an accessible and shareable format.

The study area was visited periodically throughout the ten-week period. Such site visits and meetings were conducted with local subject experts, including Verona’s public works director, recreation director, and an engineering firm, who helped to inform this research. The existing literature on the environmental impacts of both surface types was reviewed, including information on water usage, substrates, runoff, and pollution, which encompasses emissions, microplastics, and chemical leaching. The information and data collected were then used to create comprehensive graphs and tables explaining the environmental impact of both artificial turf and natural grass fields.

A literature review was also conducted on potential chemical exposure from artificial turf use versus the use of natural grass and organized into various sections. Types of fertilizers used on natural grass were reviewed, along with the associated dangers. Research was conducted on viable options for organic fertilizers, assessing benefits and limitations compared to chemical fertilizers. The relevant literature was also reviewed, comparing rates of injuries on artificial turf and natural grass. This comprehensive approach provided a deeper understanding of chemical exposures associated with both artificial turf and natural grass, guiding recommendations for safer field management practices.

In addition to reviewing the relevant literature, two types of temperature sensors were used to quantify surface heat and heat emitted from two different adjacent fields: Centennial Field (an artificial turf field) and Veterans Field (a natural grass field) in the Township of Verona, NJ. To measure the surface heat, a total of 42 Honest Observer by Onset (HOBO) temperature logger devices were used. The HOBO devices were connected to the mobile app and then placed flat on the surfaces of the fields at randomly assigned locations based on x-y coordinates. The data were collected around mid-day every 30 min on 4, 6, and 13 June 2025. These times were used because they are when the highest risk of heat exposure occurs, and the fields were occupied at night, making them unavailable for data collection. The total number of HOBO measurements used for analysis was 354.

Infrared thermometers were also used to measure infrared radiation emitted from the surface data at the same randomly selected locations as for the HOBO devices placed on each field (see Figure 1). A total of 159 readings were taken using the infrared thermometer and used in analysis. During the times these data were collected across the three days, the air temperatures ranged from 80–88 °F.

We hypothesized that there would be no difference between data collection devices (HOBO sensors vs. infrared thermometers) and that the artificial turf field would be hotter than the natural grass field. Temperature data from the two fields were compared, and data from the two types of sensors were analyzed using a 2-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s Honestly Significant Differences means separations using RStudio (version 2023.12.1+402).

Published data on the timeline of both installation and maintenance processes for artificial turf and natural grass fields were reviewed and used to inform the cost–benefit analysis. This included initial preparation, installation duration, and ongoing maintenance activities. Additionally, experts from two companies in the field of sports turf management provided project assistance, such as insights into the latest technologies, best practices, and industry standards. They also shared their experiences and professional opinions on the cost-effectiveness of different types of turf and the potential long-term impacts of each option. Engineers provided installation and maintenance estimates for Centennial Field to use in the analysis.

By comparing the costs of installation and maintenance, the most cost-effective option over a 25-year period was identified. A period of 25 years was chosen for this case study because it covers the lifespan of artificial turf multiplied by two. This analysis accounted for the frequency of maintenance activities and the expected lifespan of the turf. Averaging the inflation rates over the past ten years concluded an inflation rate increase of 2.5% per year. This was also factored into the cost–benefit analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Water Usage and Environmental Impact

Plastic production is high in water usage, at an average of 22 gallons per pound of plastic [56]. Using this conversion for the area of Centennial Field, it was found that Centennial Field used an estimated ~1.3–2 million gallons of water during the production of the artificial turf. If water is used to cool the artificial turf field, it would be an additional 250,000 gallons of water per year. With water for cooling and production added together and divided by the average lifespan of artificial turf, there would be an annual water usage of 390,000–450,000 gallons. A comparison of the overall environmental impact of turf versus natural grass was summarized (See

Table 2. Environmental impact.

	Natural Grass	Artificial Turf
Chemicals/Metals	If used, chemical pesticides and herbicides can cause issues of pollution, human health risks, and overall impacts on the natural environment [16].	PFAS, PAHs, VOCs, zinc, and more found in artificial turf lead to chemical leaching, pollution, and human/animal health risks [9,19,57].
Pollution	If used, pesticides and herbicides can leach into the ground and contaminate soil, water, and surrounding vegetation [16].	Micro- and nanoplastics are an issue regarding artificial turf. Supported by studies conducted in Spain, Switzerland, and the EU as a whole, microplastic pollution from turf, largely polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE), can be found polluting rivers and oceans and harming marine life [7,14,58]. Pollution is further caused at the end of life due to the lack of proper recycling plants; artificial turf is most often dumped in landfills or incinerated [9].
Water usage	Natural grass fields require large amounts (~0.5 to 1 million gallons) of water for irrigation [4].	Irrigation is not required for artificial turf, unless to cool to the field [4]. Water usage is intensive in the process of creating the turf. Production of the turf grass uses an estimated ~1.3–2 million gallons of water [9].
Runoff	Natural grass is more effective at storing and slowing releasing infiltrated water, reducing the risk of flooding compared to artificial turfgrass [10].	Artificial turf is thought to be impervious or semi-impervious, which results in increased runoff compared to natural grass. Long artificial turf performed less well than short artificial turf, emphasizing the need for design and operational considerations for turf [10].
Emissions	Maintenance and growing systems, such as mowing, watering, and reseeding, use greenhouse gas emissions [4].	High CO2 emissions from artificial turfs occur during the manufacturing, production, transportation, installation, maintenance, and end of life, such as incineration of fields [9].

).

3.2. Heat Data

Artificial turf temperatures measured using the infrared thermometer were 182% higher than temperatures on the natural grass field and 115% higher using HOBO sensors (see Figure 2). Additionally, temperatures on the artificial turf fields were higher than on the natural grass fields regardless of whether HOBO sensors were used or infrared thermometers. There was also a significant difference between the devices used to collect temperature data, and there was an interaction between the type of field and device used.

3.3. Cost

Based on our research, it was found that artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass in the long term (See

Table 3. Cost analysis summary of Centennial Field, artificial turf field, and natural grass.

Centennial Field	Artificial Turf	Natural Grass (Rec. 1)	Natural Grass (Rec. 2)
Installation Total	USD 1,114,608	USD 975,401	USD 848,054
Annual Maintenance Total	USD 23,270	USD 59,000	USD 18,483
2025 Total Cost	USD 1,137,878.00	USD 1,034,401	USD 866,537.40
2050 Cumulative Cost	USD 4,568,608.68	USD 3,100,091.57	USD 3,749,828.41

). This is true even when a professional organic land manager’s cost is considered. The high cost of reinstallation every ten years that is necessary for artificial turf, along with the added cost of a stormwater management system in the case of Verona, makes artificial turf more expensive to install and maintain. Initial installation costs, maintenance costs, disposal costs, and removal costs were established through a literature review of several turfs across the United States. We consulted with experts in the turf industry, as well as engineers and financial professionals, to provide feedback on the numbers used for the cost–benefit analysis. They provided insight into planning, long-term horizon of costs, and the required infrastructure involved in these projects. Data was collected and analyzed and factored into the overall recommendation for Centennial Field.

Below is the cost summary for three scenarios: keeping the field as artificial turf, the cost of an organic land manager, and natural grass (Recommendation One) and Verona managing their own field (Recommendation Two). For installation, artificial turf is more expensive; for annual maintenance, maintaining natural grass with the help of a professional manager is the most expensive. For the total estimated replacement and maintenance cost in 2025, artificial turf versus natural grass with an organic land manager are close, but artificial turf turns out to be more expensive. Finally, artificial turf becomes the most expensive option for the total estimated cumulative cost of 2050 (see Figure 3).

The two natural grass recommendations differ in construction, materials, and maintenance. Recommendation 1 includes a water recycling system, Kentucky bluegrass/Perennial ryegrass, a sand-based root zone, and seeding. It requires frequent aeration (3–5 times/year) and full-time organic land management. Recommendation 2 lacks water recycling, uses tall fescue on native soil with sodding, and requires short-term training, organic pesticides, and general organic considerations. Labor costs are an important factor considered in all three scenarios of our analysis. However, they are not included in the cost–benefit analysis because it has been determined that recreation fields, whether they are natural grass or artificial turf, inherently rely upon municipal staffing. The labor hours required for maintenance and upkeep are generally equivalent between grass and artificial turf fields, making this cost consistent across all options.

Installation costs are comparable across recommendations, so financing costs were excluded to ensure a clear, unbiased analysis of direct expenses. This approach allows stakeholders to assess the cost-effectiveness and benefits of each option without financial complexity.

Our Natural Grass Recommendation 1 is our primary suggestion, though it has increased investment in maintenance but is assumed to not need reinstallation. Finally, our Natural Grass Recommendation 2 has minimal maintenance (See

Table A2. Maintenance of artificial turf on Centennial Field (92,120 square feet) versus natural grass recommendations.

Artificial Turf (Annual Maintenance)
Description	Estimate
Management of Stormwater Devices	USD 8000
Upkeep of Existing Equipment (Sweeper/Broom/Painter/Groomer)	USD 3000
Acquisition of New Maintenance Equipment (Magnet, Rollers, Etc.)	USD 1500
Painting (If and Where Directed)	USD 1000
Disinfection	USD 220
GMAX Testing	USD 2750
Grooming Contractor	USD 6800
Total Annual Maintenance	USD 23,270
Natural Grass Recommendation 1 (Annual Maintenance)
Description	Estimate
Irrigation	USD 6000.00
Equipment For Irrigation	USD 3000.00
Organic Land Contractor	USD 50,000.00
Total Annual Maintenance	USD 59,000.00
Natural Grass Recommendation 2 (Annual Maintenance)
Description	Estimate
Irrigation	USD 6000
Equipment For Irrigation	USD 3000
Equipment Upkeep (Mower, Groomer, Aerator, Painter, Fertilizer)	USD 5000
Painting/Removal	USD 800
Top Dressing (TopSoil)	USD 1000
Organic Fertilizers	USD 1200
Organic Pesticides	USD 650
Sod Replacement	USD 833
Total Annual Maintenance	USD 18,483

in Appendix A) investment and will need to be resodded every 3–4 years. For our Artificial Turf Recommendation, the field needs to be reinstalled every 10 years and includes an additional allowance for drainage repair costs. See

Table A1. Comparison of artificial turf vs. natural grass costs.

Artificial Turf Installation Cost
Description	Quantity	Unit	Unit Price	Total
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control	1	Lump Sum	USD 5000	USD 5000
Removal of Existing Turf and Infill	1	Lump Sum	USD 50,000	USD 50,000
Disposal of Existing Turf and Infill	1	Lump Sum	USD 50,000	USD 50,000
Install Coolplay w/Infill	92,120	Square Feet	USD 7	USD 644,840
Stormwater Infrastructure	1	Lump Sum	USD 150,000	USD 150,000
Finishing Stone Repair	50	Cubic Yard	USD 80	USD 4000
Drainage System Repair	1	Lump Sum	USD 25,000	USD 25,000
Estimate				USD 928,840
20% Contingency				USD 185,768
Total Estimate				USD 1,114,608
Natural Grass (Recommendation 1) Installation Cost
Description	Quantity	Unit	Unit Price	Total
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control	1	Lump Sum	USD 5000	USD 5000
Removal of Existing Turf and Infill	1	Lump Sum	USD 50,000.00	USD 50,000
Disposal of Existing Turf and Infill	1	Lump Sum	USD 50,000.00	USD 50,000
Excavate and Removal of Finishing Stone, 2″ Thick	569	Cubic Yard	USD 50.00	USD 28,450
Excavate and Removal of Clean Stone, 2″ Min	1137	Cubic Yard	USD 50.00	USD 56,850
Nonwoven Geotextile Fabric	10,236	Square Yard	USD 5.00	USD 51,180
Topsoil Spreading and 2% Regrading, 8″ Thick Min	10,236	Square Yard	USD 25.00	USD 255,900
Seeding	92,120	Square Feet	USD 0.45	USD 41,454
Fertilizing and Seeding	3000	Square Yard	USD 3.00	USD 9000
Straw Mulching	3000	Square Yard	USD 3.00	USD 7500
Irrigation System	1	Lump Sum	USD 40,000.00	USD 40,000
Subsurface Irrigation Management	1	Lump Sum	USD 187,500	USD 187,500
Drainage System	1	Lump Sum	USD 25,000.00	USD 25,000
Final Clean-up	1	Lump Sum	USD 5000.00	USD 5000
Estimate				USD 812,834
20% Contingency				USD 162,567
Total Estimate				USD 975,401
Natural Grass (Recommendation 2) Installation Cost
Description	Quantity	Unit	Unit Price	Total
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control	1	Lump Sum	USD 5000	USD 5000
Removal of Existing Turf and Infill	1	Lump Sum	USD 50,000.00	USD 50,000
Disposal of Existing Turf and Infill	1	Lump Sum	USD 50,000.00	USD 50,000
Excavate and Removal of Finishing Stone, 2″ Thick	569	Cubic Yard	USD 50.00	USD 28,450
Excavate and Removal of Clean Stone, 2″ Min	1137	Cubic Yard	USD 50.00	USD 56,850
Nonwoven Geotextile Fabric	10,236	Square Yard	USD 5.00	USD 51,180
Topsoil Spreading and 2% Regrading, 8″ Thick Min	10,236	Square Yard	USD 25.00	USD 255,900
Sodding	10,236	Square Yard	USD 12.00	USD 122,832
Fertilizing and Seeding	3000	Square Yard	USD 3.00	USD 9000
Straw Mulching	3000	Square Yard	USD 3.00	USD 7500
Irrigation System	1	Lump Sum	USD 40,000.00	USD 40,000
Drainage System	1	Lump Sum	USD 25,000.00	USD 25,000
Final Clean-up	1	Lump Sum	USD 5000.00	USD 5000
Estimate				USD 706,712
20% Contingency				USD 141,342
Total Estimate				USD 848,054
Natural Grass Recommendation 2—2nd Installation Cost
Description	Quantity	Unit	Unit Price	Total
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control	1	Lump Sum	USD 5000	USD 5000
Topsoil Spreading and 2% Regrading, 8″ Thick Min	2559	Square Yard	USD 25.00	USD 63,975
Sodding	10,236	Square Yard	USD 12.00	USD 122,832
Fertilizing and Seeding	3000	Square Yard	USD 3.00	USD 9000
Straw Mulching	3000	Square Yard	USD 3.00	USD 7500
Final Clean-up	1	Lump Sum	USD 5000.00	USD 5000
Estimate				USD 213,307
20% Contingency				USD 42,661
Total Estimate				USD 255,968

in Appendix A, for more information comparing the costs across recommendations.

The artificial turf line on the chart shows spikes every ten years due to the reinstallation cost of USD 1,114,608, with inflation at a rate of 2.5% factored in over the years, leading to a gradual increase in costs. In contrast, Natural Grass Recommendation 1 has no spikes, as an organic land manager will manage the field, eliminating the need for additional expenses and ensuring stable maintenance costs. Natural Grass Recommendation 2 exhibits slight cost increases every 3 years due to the sodding expense of USD 255,968, with the 2.5% inflation rate also considered, resulting in a gradual rise in sodding costs over time. The inflation rate of 2.5% was calculated by averaging the inflation rates over the past ten years. This was carried out by adding the annual inflation rates for each of the ten years and then dividing the total by ten.

Although this report aimed to provide clarity on the current literature surrounding artificial turf and natural grass and guidance to the Township of Verona as they make their final decision regarding the future of the field, it is ultimately up to the Township of Verona to ensure a well-maintained field, even if this recommendation is used. It is our hope that Centennial Field can be looked to by other towns as an example of what can be achieved in natural grass fields in our modern age.

4. Limitations

Various factors limited our study. The authors were unable to locate sufficient comparative data regarding the number of possible playing hours on the surfaces. Future research should address this constraint, given the considerable importance this information might have on the final decision-making processes of local authorities. Data on athlete exposure to synthetic turf with tire crumb rubber infill is limited, with many chemicals excluded because it is difficult to measure the amount of those chemicals used [59]. Similarly, natural grass exposure studies face challenges from varying soil compositions and fertilizer effects over time [60]. Injury data for both surfaces is inconsistent, with some categories lacking sufficient data. Temperature studies focus mainly on surface temperatures and overlook broader human heat exchange factors. Discrepancies between infrared thermometers and HOBO data loggers highlight potential errors in temperature measurements. HOBO temperature loggers measure temperature from the surrounding air, while infrared thermometers measure temperature by collecting the infrared radiation emitted by the surface. Accurate cost data for maintenance, installation, and replacement was difficult to obtain due to market variability. The costs are based on the case study of Centennial Field in Verona, New Jersey, and are not meant to be generalized to other locations. This research did not include the impact of paint, machinery use in maintenance, or best practices for both artificial turf and natural grass. Limitations to the data collected include time constraints, regional data variability, and inconsistent data on water use, emissions, and pollution due to differing field construction, soil types, and climates. Also, the lack of standardized metrics for field playability and usage further complicates comparisons.

5. Conclusions

Based on the research conducted, it is recommended that the Township of Verona should replace Centennial Field with a natural grass field. This conclusion was reached based on a combined consideration of all the findings. Specifically, natural grass was found to have a lower environmental impact, be more cost-effective in the long term, and have a lower safety risk in the dimensions of heat and chemical exposure. It was found that a well-maintained natural grass field, even when maintained traditionally with synthetic fertilizers, was found to create much lower levels of pollution. A well-maintained natural grass field was also found to contain fewer compounds that harm the environment and human health and have lower levels of emissions over its lifetime. Safety considerations as a whole also favor natural grass fields. Natural grass does not get as hot as artificial turf, decreasing the risk of heat exhaustion, and it has generally similar or slightly lower injury risks in the categories researched. Although technologies exist that decrease the heat on artificial turf fields, they still do not decrease heat to levels comparable to natural grass fields. Additionally, such technologies are more expensive and have far higher emission rates than traditional artificial turf. Natural grass on average also uses much more water over its lifetime, but other health and environmental considerations were found to outweigh this issue.