Laserfiche WebLink
In drought-prone regions, artificial turf has been framed as a water-saving solution despite the <br />availability of functional drought-tolerant alternatives. Aesthetic preferences for uniform synthetic <br />surfaces can also slow adoption of biodiverse living landscapes. <br />Return on Investment <br />Return on investment should be evaluated over the full lifecycle of a project rather than based <br />only on upfront installation costs. Across public spaces, natural materials such as drought-tolerant <br />plantings, engineered wood fiber and crushed granite can reduce long-term costs by lowering irrigation <br />needs, minimizing replacement cycles and avoiding disposal of synthetic materials. These approaches <br />also provide co-benefits including heat reduction, stormwater absorption, habitat support and improved <br />user comfort that are not typically captured in standard cost comparisons. <br />For sports fields, the cost comparison between artificial turf and natural grass has been studied in <br />detail. While artificial turf is often marketed as a cost-saving solution, it typically involves high initial <br />installation costs and recurring replacement cycles every 8–10 years. A case study from Verona, New <br />Jersey found that each replacement can exceed $1 million, creating significant periodic capital expenses. <br />Additional costs may include specialized stormwater infrastructure, ongoing infill replenishment and <br />disposal of materials that are generally not recyclable. <br />In contrast, natural grass fields have higher annual maintenance needs but avoid large <br />“rip-and-replace” costs. The Verona study found that over a 25-year period natural grass remained more <br />cost-effective even when accounting for professional management. Research from Cornell University <br />similarly shows that synthetic fields require substantially higher upfront investment along with specialized <br />maintenance such as grooming infill management and safety testing. <br />Overall natural systems tend to follow a more stable cost pattern while artificial turf introduces <br />periodic high-cost replacement cycles. When long-term costs, infrastructure needs and environmental <br />externalities are considered, natural alternatives often present a more cost-effective and resilient <br />investment across public spaces. <br />References and Resources <br />● Susan Hinton, Chair, Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, <br />SueHintonE@gmail.com <br />● Stockholm Resilience Centre. The bumpy road towards a global plastics treaty, 2023. <br />● UN Environment Programme. Beat Pollution. Plastic – not so fantastic. <br />● Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). Artificial Turf fact-sheet. <br />● BAWSCA’s approved plant replacement list. <br />● Contra Costa Water District. Plan a Landscape Project. <br />● Calscape. California Native Plant. Society. Bay Area Garden Planner. Select your Garden <br />Priorities. <br />● Hammoud R., et al. Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment reveals an <br />incremental association between natural diversity and mental wellbeing. Scientific Reports , <br />2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55940-7 <br />● Coastal Shrub. Bring Your Design to Life. <br />● Montclair State University. Environmental Risks and Cost Inefficiencies of Artificial Turf Compared <br />to Managed Natural Grass. Sustainability, 2025. <br />● Klasios, Natasha. Understanding and Managing Artificial Turf. University of British Columbia <br />Sustainability Scholars Program, 2025. <br />● Yale School of the Environment. Plastics and Environmental Impact Commentary. <br /> <br />Alternatives to Plastic in Spaces Page 4 of 5 <br />