Abstract
Ten years after the Connecticut school pesticide ban, the inability to apply Environmental Protection Agency-registered pesticides on school grounds has altered the management of athletic fields and landscapes. This is part two of a three-part series that documents grounds maintenance changes, grounds quality, and potential transitions to synthetic turf 10 years following this ban. To explore the 10-year impact of the 2010 pesticide ban on quality perceptions and management budgets of school grounds properties, a survey was distributed in 2021 to Connecticut school grounds managers. The results indicate that the quality of Connecticut school grounds has declined since the 2010 pesticide ban, even with an increase in operating budgets. Additional guidance and resources for school grounds managers related to optimizing budgets and management practices to enhance the quality of pesticide-free school grounds are needed.
Conversations about pesticide use on school grounds properties have been ongoing for decades. This issue remains contentious for parents, school district administrators, and health care professionals alike. Because of their physiology, children are more vulnerable to the potential negative health effects related to pesticides (Watnick 1996). Age-appropriate behaviors of children, including their affinity for placing hands and objects in and around their mouths and their proximity to natural surfaces when playing and learning, cause them to be particularly susceptible to the chronic effects of pesticide exposure (Landrigan et al. 1999). Clinical conditions resulting from chronic exposure to pesticides can be related to neurological morbidities and can include more targeted or systemic impacts resulting from carcinogenic properties of these chemicals (Pascale and Laborde 2020). Urban youth may be at greater risk for pesticide exposure because of the prevalence of its use within population-dense contexts (Landrigan et al. 1999).
Motivated by concerns regarding student and employee health, legislation pertaining to school pesticide use is becoming increasingly common. States that have implemented pesticide restrictions span across the country from the West to East Coasts, with varying regulations for notification, pesticide selection, and buffer zones (Owens 2009). In 2010, Connecticut state legislation banned the application of all Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered landscape and lawn care pesticides on the grounds of public and private pre-kindergarten Pre-K and K through 8th grade (K–8) schools (State of Connecticut 2005). Although legislation effectively reduced population exposure to pesticides (Ames 2002), changes in practices among school grounds managers regarding pest management have implications for the school landscape (Bartholomew et al. 2015). School grounds include athletic fields, general turfgrass areas, managed landscapes, playgrounds, and all areas within property borders.
Although shared criteria for assessing school grounds quality do not exist (Bartholomew et al. 2015), athletic field turfgrass stands have more defined evaluative parameters. Quality of turfgrass is based on color, density, and texture (Morris and Shearman 1998). These characteristics can be impacted by the presence of insect, plant, and microbial pest species. White grubs, for example, can cause significant damage to the rhizomatic zone in a natural turfgrass stand, resulting in turfgrass mortality and inconsistency (Potter and Braman 1991). Microbial diseases, including brown patch, present considerable challenges to maintaining high-quality stands and athletic fields (Butler and Kerns 2017).
Weed encroachment as an element of athletic field turfgrass quality is a top management priority, especially considering the pesticide legislation (Bartholomew et al. 2015). In addition to negatively affecting the cosmetic appearance, the presence of weeds in school athletic fields directly affects player safety (Brosnan et al. 2014). Player injuries may be more likely to occur because of uneven playing surfaces attributed to the presence of weeds (Kordi et al. 2011). Other surface characteristics, such as compaction of soil, have negative implications for athlete injury risk and may be mitigated through management practices such as aeration (Walker and Walker 2022). The findings of Straw et al. (2018b) indicated that athlete injuries associated with surface conditions may be related to within-field variation, particularly at areas of transition in turfgrass quality and shear strength, hardness, and moisture. Variability in surface quality may be distinguishable by adult athletes, and some may change their playing behavior to avoid injury (Straw et al. 2018a).
Because of its efficacy and ease of application, chemical treatment of weeds in athletic fields is a common practice. Connecticut school grounds managers previously indicated that crabgrass and broadleaf weeds were significant problem pests, with herbicides being the most common chemical product applied to school ground properties before the implementation of the pesticide ban (Bartholomew et al. 2015). Although different types of pesticides such as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides can be used to control various turfgrass pests, Gilden et al. (2012) found that herbicides were the most prevalent pesticide applied to athletic fields in Maryland. Maintaining natural turfgrass quality on Connecticut school ground properties without pesticide use has presented a serious maintenance challenge.
To understand the initial impact of this legislation on school grounds and athletic fields, the University of Connecticut Extension completed a survey of school grounds managers in 2012 to assess how management practices changed to accommodate the 2010 regulations (Bartholomew et al. 2015). The data provided insights into the use of pesticide-free management techniques and how such strategies impacted the playing surface of athletic fields as well as the maintenance protocols on school properties. The present study was conducted 10 years after the initial survey research to document current management practices on Connecticut school grounds, evaluate how maintenance practices have changed over the last 10 years (pre-ban and post-ban), compare the perceptions during the early years of the ban to the current perceptions, develop goals related to future management practices, and understand how the University of Connecticut Extension can continue to provide support as school grounds managers refine and improve the sustainability of their maintenance practices.
As a component of the larger body of work, this portion of the study is focused on assessing the quality of Connecticut school grounds since the 2010 pesticide ban as perceived by the school grounds manager. The lack of a corresponding increase in Connecticut school maintenance budgets directly following the ban meant that many school grounds managers struggled to adapt to the pesticide-free programs while maintaining quality (Bartholomew et al. 2015). A better understanding of how the pesticide ban has changed both school grounds maintenance expenses and perceived athletic field quality is essential for gauging player safety and educating local and state policymakers about budget impacts. Objectives specific to this portion of the study included the impact of the pesticide ban on athletic field and school landscape quality perceptions, changes in turfgrass uniformity and safety, school grounds manager response to quality issues, and changes to management budgets and their implications. These survey results will provide directions for future school integrated pest management (IPM) outreach education. The results will also aid in prioritizing future turfgrass research, developing enhanced best management practices for school athletic fields and landscape areas, and supporting the ability to guide the Connecticut legislature before creating additional state legislation.
Materials and methods
By operationalizing an exploratory quantitative methodology, a digital survey instrument comprising 83 items was developed with landscape, turfgrass, and evaluation specialists to explore the study objectives. This survey comprising questions related to demographics, maintenance, athletic fields, managed landscapes, perceived quality, budgets, and pest pressures included multiple choice options, select all options, and short response options. Questions specific to this composition included grounds appearance and quality as perceived by school grounds managers and noncaretakers, safety and injury observations, parental concerns related to the notification of pesticide use, emergency exemption requests, staffing and labor, as well as budget and expenditure changes.
The sampling pool of survey participants was acquired through multiple database resources, including e-mail addresses collected from attendees of past University of Connecticut Extension workshops, partner lists (e.g., vendors, landscape association), and direct contact with school districts. Partnerships were leveraged with Connecticut School Building Grounds Association, Connecticut Recreation and Parks Association, and University of Connecticut Extension Public Works Associations for further dissemination of the instrument. Data were collected using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA) between Feb 2021 and Mar 2021. Three e-mails were sent to the sampling pool promoting the survey during this time.
Of the 611 unique e-mails in the sampling pool, responses from 79 respondents were recorded, representing 57 of 169 Connecticut towns (Fig. 1). This included responses from professionals at both public and private institutions. Demographics of represented towns and cities mirrored those of the Connecticut average (Table 1). Following the completion of data collection, data were exported to Stata (version 17; StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) for cleaning, coding, and analysis. Analysis procedures included descriptive statistical tests, relational tests, and tests of significant difference.
Cities and towns represented in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021, as indicated by responding school grounds managers. Represented cities and towns included the following: Beacon Falls, Berlin, Bolton, Bristol, Brookfield, Canton, Cheshire, Colchester, Cornwall, Coventry, Danbury, Darien, East Hartford, East Lyme, Ellington, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby, Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Hartford, Hebron, Lebanon, Ledyard, Litchfield, Manchester, Mansfield, Meriden, Naugatuck, New Canaan, New Haven, Newington, Newtown, North Franklin, North Haven, Norwalk, Norwich, Plainville, Portland, Prospect, Ridgefield, Salisbury, Seymour, Simsbury, Somers, South Windsor, Southington, Stamford, Stonington, Tolland, Vernon, Washington, West Hartford, Westport, Wethersfield, and Woodstock.
Citation: HortTechnology 35, 3; 10.21273/HORTTECH05588-24
Characteristics of cities responding to the 2021 impacts of the Connecticut school pesticide ban survey.
Results and discussion
Perceptions of quality
As one of the most easily observable evaluative criterion of school grounds management, quality is of considerable concern for districts and management professionals. The quality of school grounds communicates to students, parents, staff, and visitors that the institution is well-maintained and valued by the community. Without the use of chemical control within management systems, pests can quickly become a threat to school grounds quality. Following the ban, school grounds manager perceptions of overall quality for athletic fields and landscape beds/grounds declined for 74% and 76% of respondents, respectively (Table 2). This finding is similar to observations documented in the 2012 survey study, wherein 36% of respondents transitioning to IPM management systems from conventional management and 77% of respondents transitioning from IPM to pesticide-free management systems indicated a quality decline (Bartholomew et al. 2015). Ten years after the ban, maintaining a consistent quality of both landscape and turfgrass areas without pesticide application continues to be a struggle for school grounds managers.
Table 2. Impact of 2010 pesticide ban on perceived quality of school grounds and athletic fields, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Observations of changes in quality by noncaretakers, such as parents, staff, or school administrators, have been communicated to school grounds managers. While many school grounds managers indicated they observed no change in the parental concern level regarding pesticide application notifications (Table 3), 46% of respondents in 2021 reported that they received more negative comments since 2010 about athletic field appearance and safety (Table 4). Similarly, 43% of respondents in 2021 shared that they received more negative comments about landscape appearance since 2010 (Table 4). Therefore, changes in quality post-ban are evident to those outside of the green industry.
Parent concern level about being notified about pesticide applications on school properties, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Comments received about appearance or safety of school athletic fields and landscapes since 2010, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
In addition to negative impacts of the pesticide ban on quality and appearance, athletic field uniformity and perceived safety also declined for 67% of school grounds managers (Table 5). Uniformity inconsistencies may be caused by insect or weed populations, two common pests found on the school grounds 10 years after the ban (Tomis et al. 2025), and may have implications for player injury (Brosnan et al. 2014; Kordi et al. 2011). Insects can cause soil displacement because of root injury, whereas weeds create uneven turfgrass surfaces. Additional types of quality reductions, such as surface unevenness and variations in moisture and compaction, may also impact player safety (Straw et al. 2018a; Straw et al. 2018b; Walker and Walker 2022). Although the determination of causal relationships between player injury and weed emergence is outside of the scope of this study, perceptions of changes in injury incidence by school grounds managers were explored. Only 7% of school grounds managers observed an increase in player injuries over the 10-year period (Table 6). The majority (65%) of school grounds managers did not know if there was a change in injury occurrence since 2010 (Table 6).
Impact of the 2010 pesticide ban on various characteristics of K–8 school grounds, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Perceived change in occurrence of athletic player/student injury on athletic fields since 2010, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Handling quality issues
Although a decline in athletic field and school landscapes quality was observed, only 31% of the school grounds managers had requested an emergency exemption to use pesticides on school grounds, athletic fields, or municipal playgrounds since 2010 (Table 7). Of those who had requested an exemption, stinging insects (48%) and poison ivy (38%) were the most common reasons for the requests (Table 8). All exemption requests were approved, except for one request for aphid control (Table 9).
Requests for emergency exemptions to use pesticides on school grounds, athletic fields, or municipal playgrounds, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Type of pest emergency pesticide use exemption requested, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Response to emergency pesticide use exemption requested, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
The majority of school grounds managers indicated that there was no change in the number of staff dedicated to school grounds care in their departments since 2010, although a similar percentage of respondents reported that staff numbers had increased (25%) or decreased (23%) (Table 10). Contracting out some or all management services to external companies was observed for 46% of school grounds managers (Table 11). This need for contractual services may be attributable to an increase in the use of additional seasonal labor to support pesticide-free maintenance strategies rather than hiring additional full-time staff. Following fertilization (67%), the next most commonly contracted services were mowing (33%), control of weed pests (33%), and control of insect pests (33%) (Table 12).
Change in the number of staff dedicated to school grounds care in department since 2010, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
School grounds managers participating in a Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021 were asked if they contracted out any school grounds and athletic field maintenance (e.g., fertilization, cultivation).
Maintenance practices contracted out, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Budgets and expenses
The majority (57%) of school grounds managers experienced an increase in their annual operating budget beyond inflation costs (Table 13). Although only 35% of respondents indicated that they had to reallocate any portion of their budget to meet the need of maintaining school grounds over the last 10 years (Table 14), 49% of respondents shared that they needed to increase the percentage of their budget dedicated to managing K–8 athletic fields and school grounds (Table 13). Most school grounds managers (70%) indicated that their expenses had increased because of the pesticide legislation (Table 15), and 72% shared that it cost them more to complete the same amount of work in 2021 than it did before the pesticide ban was enacted (Table 16). These expenses were primarily reflected in observed increases in the cost of labor (82% of respondents), cost of supplies (77% of respondents), and equipment (55% of respondents) (Table 17). In the 2012 survey, Bartholomew et al. (2015) found that quality was more likely to remain consistent if expenditures increased. Resource-limited municipalities may experience greater school grounds quality impacts as a result of the ban (Bartholomew et al. 2015).
Changes to budget (excluding inflation) since 2010, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Budget reallocations to meet the need of maintaining school grounds over the last 10 years (2010–20), as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Statement that most accurately describes the effect of the pesticide legislation on expenses for athletic field and school grounds maintenance, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
School grounds managers participating in a Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021 were asked which of the following statements were true, with regard to the 2010 pesticide ban.
Expenses that have increased for school grounds managers since 2010, as indicated by school grounds managers in the Connecticut school pesticide ban impact survey in 2021.
Changes in management strategies made to compensate for the inability to use chemical control (Tomis et al. 2025) may be related to increases in expenses. Grass seed purchases, for example, increased for 81% of school grounds managers after the ban was enacted (Table 16), which may be attributable to recommendations made for overseeding practices for heavily used pesticide-free athletic fields (Henderson and Wallace 2020). Similarly, increased mowing events and other cultural practices to maintain quality playing surfaces (Tomis et al. 2025) may be the reason for the necessary increase in labor needs reported by 53% of respondents (Table 16). Purchases of new equipment by 53% of school grounds managers since 2010 may also indicate shifts in management strategies (Table 16).
Perceptions of school grounds managers indicated that improving school grounds quality without the use of EPA-registered pesticides required greater physical effort and increased product inputs (Table 16). Although reductions in municipal pesticide applications may have positive implications for ecosystem health, nutritional inputs and increased mowing may present alternative challenges in the quest for environmental sustainability. The value placed on mowing, irrigation, fertilization, overseeding, and cultivation by school grounds managers (Tomis et al. 2025) further supports the reliance on cultural practices to maintain quality in the absence of EPA-registered pesticides.
Conclusions
Perceptions of school athletic field and landscape quality since the 2010 school pesticide ban considerably diminished for school grounds managers and noncaretakers. Furthermore, the perceived decline in school athletic field uniformity following the ban may have implications for student athlete safety, although more research is needed. In response to changes in school grounds quality, many school grounds managers have opted to contract out maintenance services to external companies and reported purchasing new equipment and additional product needs. Expenditures to compensate for the inability to manage chemically have amplified the budgetary needs of school grounds management.
Even with an increase in school grounds operating funds, an overall decrease in athletic field and landscape quality indicates that budgets may continue to be insufficient for quality pesticide-free school grounds management. School grounds managers may struggle to make budgetary decisions regarding which cultural practices or product applications are the most effective and appropriate to achieve and maintain high-quality athletic field conditions. Although potentially challenging, communication efforts made by the school grounds manager to inform parents, school administration and staff, and stakeholders about the challenges of maintaining quality athletic surfaces and healthy school landscapes without pesticide application could potentially improve receptibility to budgetary improvement requests.
Understanding and prioritizing specific management tactics that support or improve school landscape or athletic field quality would be valuable to advancing best management practices and providing accurate recommendations for this group of professionals. The development of standards for school grounds quality would also be useful for individuals maintaining pesticide-free school grounds. In contexts where professionals experience difficulty in achieving quality school landscapes and athletic fields without the use of pesticides, a coalition of school grounds managers and extension personnel can be leveraged to co-develop educational programs and resources, provide reciprocal support, and provide education regarding pending legislative action.
References cited
Ames RG. 2002. Pesticide impacts on communities and schools. Int J Toxicol. 21(5):397–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10915810290096621.
Bartholomew C, Campbell BL, Wallace V. 2015. Factors affecting school grounds and athletic field quality after pesticide bans: The case of Connecticut. HortScience. 50(1):99–103. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.50.1.99.
Brosnan JT, Dickson KH, Sorochan JC, Thoms AW, Stier JC. 2014. Large crabgrass, white clover, and hybrid bermudagrass athletic field playing quality in response to simulated traffic. Crop Sci. 54(4):1838–1843. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2013.11.0754.
Butler L, Kerns J. 2017. Brown patch in turf. NC State Extension, Raleigh, NC, USA. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/brown-patch-in-turf. [accessed 4 Jun 2024].
Gilden R, Friedmann E, Sattler B, Squibb K, McPhaul K. 2012. Potential health effects related to pesticide use on athletic fields. Pub Health Nurs. 29(3):198–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2012.01016.x.
Henderson J, Wallace V. 2020. Best management practices for pesticide-free cool season athletic fields (2nd ed). University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. https://ipm-cahnr.media.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3216/2023/07/UConn-Athletic-Field-Best-Management-Practices-2020.pdf. [accessed 28 Jun 2024].
Kordi R, Hemmati F, Heidarian H, Ziaee V. 2011. Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on dirt field and artificial turf field by amateur football players. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol. 3(3):3. https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1758-2555-3-3.
Landrigan PJ, Claudio L, Markowitz SB, Berkowitz GS, Brenner BL, Romero H, Wetmur JG, Matte TD, Gore AC, Godbold JH, Wolff MS. 1999. Pesticides and inner-city children: Exposures, risks, and prevention. Environ Health Perspectives. 107(Suppl 3):431–437. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.99107s3431.
Morris KN, Shearman RC. 1998. NTEP turfgrass evaluation guidelines. https://www.ntep.org/pdf/ratings.pdf. [accessed 4 Jun 2024].
Owens K. 2009. Schooling of state pesticide laws: 2010 update. Pesticides and you. 29(3):9–20. https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/schools/publications/Schooling2010.pdf.
Pascale A, Laborde A. 2020. Impact of pesticide exposure in childhood. Rev on Environ. 35(3):221–227. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2020-0011.
Potter DA, Braman SK. 1991. Ecology and management of turfgrass insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 36(1):383–406. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.36.010191.002123.
State of Connecticut. 2005. Public act 5-252. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/ACT/Pa/pdf/2005PA-00252-R00SB-00916-PA.pdf. [accessed 13 Jun 2024].
Straw CM, Henry GM, Shannon J, Thompson JJ. 2018a. Athletes’ perceptions of within-field variability on natural turfgrass sports fields. Precision Agric. 20(1):118–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-018-9585-2.
Straw CM, Samson CO, Henry GM, Brown CN. 2018b. Does variability within natural turfgrass sports fields influence ground-derived injuries? Eur J Sport Sci. 18(6):893–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1457083.
Tomis SM, Campbell BL, Henderson JJ, Siegel-Miles AJ, Wallace VH. 2025. Impacts of the 2010 Connecticut school grounds pesticide ban a decade later: Part 1. Grounds maintenance changes. HortTechnology. 35(3):267–273. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05587-24.
Walker EG, Walker KS. 2022. Using agronomic data to minimize the impact of field conditionson player injuries and enhance the development of a risk management plan. J Sports Analytics. 8(2):103–114. https://doi.org/10.3233/JSA-200538.
Watnick V. 1996. Who’s minding the schools: Toward least toxic methods of pest control in our nation’s schools. Fordham Environ Law J. 8(1):73–102.