Editing Artificial turf (section)

=== Environmental footprint ===
The first major academic review of the environmental and health risks and benefits of artificial turf was published in 2014;<ref name=":0" /> it was followed by extensive research on possible risks to human health, but holistic analyses of the environmental footprint of artificial turf compared with natural turf only began to emerge in the 2020s,<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> and frameworks to support informed policymaking were still lacking.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Barnes |first1=Michael R |last2=Watkins |first2=Eric |date=September 30, 2022 |title='Greenness' in the Eye of the Beholder: Comparing Perceptions of Sustainability and Well-being Between Artificial and Natural Turfgrass |url=https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol15/iss1/2 |journal=Cities and the Environment |volume=15 |issue=1 |doi=10.15365/cate.202.150102 |s2cid=252668065 |issn=1932-7048|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Straw |first1=C. M. |last2=McCullough |first2=B. P. |last3=Segars |first3=C. |last4=Daher |first4=B. |last5=Patterson |first5=M. S. |date=September 1, 2022 |title=Reimagining Sustainable Community Sports Fields of the Future: a Framework for Convergent Science-Stakeholder Decision-Making |journal=Circular Economy and Sustainability|volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=1267–1277 |doi=10.1007/s43615-021-00115-z |s2cid=242002500 |issn=2730-5988|doi-access=free |bibcode=2022CirES...2.1267S }}</ref> Evaluating the relative environmental footprints of natural and artificial turf is complex, with outcomes depending on a wide range of factors, including (to give the example of a sports field):<ref name=":0" />

* what ecosystem services are lost by converting a site to a sports pitch
* how resource-intensive is the landscaping work and transport of materials to create a pitch
* whether input materials are recycled and whether these are recycled again at the end of the pitch's life
* how resource-intensive and damaging maintenance is (whether through water, fertiliser, weed-killer, reapplication of rubber crumb, snow-clearing, etc.)
* how intensively the facility is used, for how long, and whether surface type can reduce the overall number of pitches required

Artificial turf has been shown to contribute to global warming by absorbing significantly more radiation than living turf and, to a lesser extent, by displacing living plants that could sequester carbon dioxide through photosynthesis;<ref>Golden, Leslie M. (2021) "The Contribution of Artificial Turf to Global Warming," ''Sustainability and Climate Change'', December,'''14''' (6) 436-449; http://doi.org/10.1089/scc.2021.0038</ref> a study at New Mexico State University found that in that environment, water-cooling of artificial turf can demand as much water as natural turf.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kanaan |first1=Ahmed |last2=Sevostianova |first2=Elena |last3=Leinauer |first3=Bernd |last4=Sevostianov |first4=Igor |date=October 2020 |title=Water Requirements for Cooling Artificial Turf |url=https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IR.1943-4774.0001506 |journal=Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering|volume=146 |issue=10 |doi=10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001506 |s2cid=224884193 |issn=0733-9437|url-access=subscription }}</ref> However, a 2022 study that used real-world data to model a ten-year-life-cycle environmental footprint for a new natural-turf soccer field compared with an artificial-turf field found that the natural-turf field contributed twice as much to global warming as the artificial one (largely due to a more resource-intensive construction phase), while finding that the artificial turf would likely cause more pollution of other kinds. It promoted improvements to usual practice such as the substitution of [[Cork (material)|cork]] for rubber in artificial pitches and more drought-resistant grasses and electric mowing in natural ones.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Russo |first1=Carlo |last2=Cappelletti |first2=Giulio Mario |last3=Nicoletti |first3=Giuseppe Martino |date=July 1, 2022 |title=The product environmental footprint approach to compare the environmental performances of artificial and natural turf |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019592552200066X |journal=Environmental Impact Assessment Review|volume=95 |pages=106800 |doi=10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106800 |bibcode=2022EIARv..9506800R |s2cid=248644133 |issn=0195-9255|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In 2021, a [[Zurich University of Applied Sciences]] study for the city of [[Zurich]], using local data on extant pitches, found that, per hour of use, natural turf had the lowest environmental footprint, followed by artificial turf with no infill, and then artificial turf using an infill (e.g. granulated rubber). However, because it could tolerate more hours of use, unfilled artificial turf often had the lowest environmental footprint in practice, by reducing the total number of pitches required. The study recommended optimising the use of existing pitches before building new ones, and choosing the best surface for the likely intensity of use.<ref name=":2">René Itten, Lukas Glauser und Matthias Stucki, "[https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/bitstream/11475/21510/3/2021_Itten-etal_LCA-turf-sports-fields_Executive-Summary.pdf Life Cycle Assessment of Artificial and Natural Turf Sports Fields – Executive Summary]" (Wädenswil: ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, 2021); cf. "Ökobilanzierung von Rasensportfeldern: Natur-, Kunststoff- und Hybridrasen der Stadt Zürich im Vergleich" (Wädenswil: ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, 2020), {{doi|10.21256/zhaw-20774}}.</ref> Another suggestion is the introduction of [[green roof]]s to [[Carbon offsets and credits|offset]] the conversion of grassland to artificial turf.<ref>Julian E. Lozano and Shon Ferguson, "[https://www.ifn.se/media/sq0b0gti/2021-ferguson-lozano-ecosystem-services-for-compensation-of-artificial-turf-systems.pdf Ecosystem services for compensation of artificial turf systems]" (May 2021).</ref>