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

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.