Abstract
Prohibited by state legislation in 2010, changes in the use of Environmental Protection Agency–registered pesticides on school grounds have impacted management decisions in Connecticut. A survey was distributed to school grounds managers. This is part three of a three-part series that documents grounds maintenance changes, grounds quality, and potential transitions to synthetic turf 10 years after this ban. We inquired about the prospective transition from natural turfgrass fields to synthetic playing surfaces and the driving factors for this transition 10 years after the pesticide ban. Transitions to synthetic turf by Connecticut schools were primarily influenced by field use demand and population per square mile. Research and extension efforts focused on synthetic turf are warranted due to its increased popularity after the school pesticide ban.
Athletic fields are an essential component of every school landscape property. This green infrastructure provides a playing surface for students to engage in various competitive or recreational activities and serves as a tangible representation of school athletic pride. Traditionally, athletic fields have consisted of natural turfgrass swards maintained by staff employed by the individual school district, municipal public works, or recreational departments. However, synthetic turf surfaces have gained popularity since their inception in the 1960s (Jastifer et al. 2019).
Synthetic turf options have advanced from generation 1 to generation 3 to improve playability. Generation 1 surfaces were composed of nylon fibers that were short and dense. This system did not include infill materials. Generation 2 surfaces included longer fibers with sand-only infill. Third generation systems have longer fibers with infill materials that typically include a mixture of both sand and crumb rubber (Jastifer et al. 2019). Synthetic fields have been marketed to public and private institutions for their low input qualities postinstallation and ability to tolerate intensive use (Synthetic Turf Council 2011), but they have also been criticized for high investment concerns and user safety considerations (Yue et al. 2024). Given the distinct advantages and disadvantages of synthetic turf, this alternative playing surface provides schools, recreational departments, and sports organizations surrogate areas to consider when constructing or renovating recreational athletic fields.
The average cost of a synthetic turf installation can be considerably greater compared with the construction of a natural turfgrass field (Daviscourt et al. 2016). Maintenance costs for the two systems may be commensurate, depending on input and management approaches (Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute 2016). Management of natural turfgrass fields traditionally involves an integrated system of mowing, irrigating, cultivating, fertilizing, and controlling pests (Henderson and Wallace 2020) to yield high-quality playing surfaces. Additional strategies may be implemented, such as soil testing for precision nutrition and overseeding to improve turfgrass density in high-traffic conditions. Equipment needs can include mowers, aerators, overseeders, implements for applying fertilizer and pesticides, as well as irrigation infrastructure [Sports Turf Managers Association (STMA) 2008].
Distinct maintenance practices are required for properly managing synthetic surfaces. Cleaning and repairing rips in the materials are common maintenance practices for synthetic turf fields (STMA 2008). Infill materials such as crumb rubber and sand must be loosened to prevent compaction of the surface and additional infill may need to be added (Fleming et al. 2023). Furthermore, equipment needs vary for natural and synthetic playing surfaces (STMA 2008). Transitioning from natural turfgrass may necessitate additional investment in new equipment (Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute 2016). Grooming of synthetic surfaces to retain vertical position of synthetic fibers following use, for example, requires the use of a turf broom (Jastifer et al. 2019).
Decision-makers at the municipal level may have incorrect assumptions about the inputs needed to maintain synthetic turf (Braun et al. 2024). While nutrient inputs are eliminated, synthetic surfaces still require other types of chemical care treatments, such as minimal weed control, disinfectants, and static electricity reducing agents. An additional consideration given the prominent climate change discussion is the loss of carbon sequestration capacity when natural turfgrass surfaces are transitioned to synthetic surfaces (Simon 2010). For natural turfgrass systems, the carbon sequestration value can be impacted by turfgrass species, cultural practices, and selected inputs to maintain the turfgrass system (Guillard et al. 2018; Law et al. 2017; Qian et al. 2010).
The primary advantage of a synthetic turf field is the high traffic tolerance (Jastifer et al. 2019; Serensits et al. 2013). This enables high frequency of use, greater scheduling capacity, and extended seasonal availability. Synthetic fields provide an alternative surface for activities when natural playing surfaces are not able to recover. Additionally, synthetic surfaces can provide a more consistent playing surface during inclement weather (Simon 2010), particularly if natural surfaces are constructed and/or maintained incorrectly.
Studies of injury rates among athletes competing on synthetic turf surfaces yield conflicting results. A comprehensive review of the literature indicates that differences in injury between natural turfgrass and synthetic surfaces are minimal or insignificant, apart from ankle injuries, which are more likely to occur on synthetic turf fields (Williams et al. 2011). A meta-analysis conducted on both natural turfgrass and synthetic fields by O’Leary et al. (2020) also revealed that the incidence of concussion among soccer athletes was not found to be greater on synthetic systems, and head injury occurrence was reduced among American football and rugby athletes competing on an artificial surface.
Temperatures at the surface of a synthetic turf system can quickly fluctuate and reach considerably higher temperatures in sunny conditions compared with natural turfgrass systems (Jim 2017). This excessive heat can increase concerns regarding field-user safety (Devitt et al. 2007) and may be dependent on infill material (Reasor 2014; Thoms 2015). Due to youths’ enhanced susceptibility to heat-related illness (Grubenhoff et al. 2007), this class of athletes may be especially at risk for injury when playing and competing on warm synthetic surfaces. The need to cool such hot surfaces for athlete safety may increase the hydrologic inputs of the synthetic system, although this is only a temporary solution to high turf temperatures (McNitt et al. 2008). More promising strategies for mitigating surface heat-related injuries may include forced air applications and reflective pigments (Thoms 2015). Intentional scheduling of playing surfaces using predictive weather models can also be used (Thoms 2015; Thoms et al. 2014).
In the state of Connecticut, USA, a law implemented in 2010 banned the use of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered pesticides on school grounds and athletic fields where students from kindergarten to eighth grade are present (State of Connecticut 2005). This research is part of a broader study wherein we explored the impacts of the 2010 K–8 pesticide ban (Tomis et al. 2025a, 2025b). This portion of the study examined the following objectives: 1) quantification of transitions by Connecticut schools to synthetic playing surfaces post-2010 pesticide ban, 2) reasons for playing surface transitions, and 3) impacts of city/town population and median household income on playing surface transitions.
Materials and methods
To better understand the replacement of natural turfgrass fields with synthetic turf at Connecticut schools following the 2010 pesticide ban, a digital Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) survey instrument was distributed in 2021 by the University of Connecticut (UConn) Department of Extension to Connecticut school grounds managers. The 83-item survey was distributed via e-mail in Feb 2021 to member listservs of the Connecticut Recreation and Parks Association, the Connecticut School Building Grounds Association, Connecticut Public Works, Connecticut school district contacts as well as UConn Extension program participants and commercial suppliers. Individuals in the response sample were contacted up to three times by e-mail for participation in the survey. Respondents were informed that participation in the study was voluntary, and their responses would remain anonymous. Data were collected starting in Feb 2021 and ending in Mar 2021.
There were 611 unique e-mail addresses that received a link to access the survey instrument and 79 respondents. This is the third and final article in a series of articles focused on the implications of the Connecticut school pesticide ban. Related to this composition, questions were posed to assess the number of synthetic fields that were in place before and after implementation of the ban, the number of fields that had been replaced since 2010, the reasoning for the replacement of a field, and the location of the school (Fig. 1). Data analysis took place through Stata (version 17; StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). A χ2 test was conducted to analyze the main factor driving the replacement of a natural turfgrass field with a synthetic turf surface and a two-sample t test was conducted to assess the impact of population and average household on synthetic turf field implementation since the 2010 pesticide ban.
School grounds manager respondents to a 2021 survey that focused on the impact of the Connecticut school pesticide ban represented the following cities and towns in Connecticut: 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/HORTTECH05589-24
Results and discussion
Before the 2010 pesticide ban, 32% of school ground managers reported maintaining a synthetic field (Table 1). After the ban, 56% of school grounds managers reported that a natural turfgrass field had been replaced with a synthetic turf surface (Table 2). This shows an increase of 24% points in implementation of synthetic turf since 2010 (Table 2). Of the school grounds managers who reported that their school or town replaced a natural turfgrass field with synthetic turf since 2010, 76% indicated that one to two fields had been replaced. A smaller number of respondents (24%) reported that three to four fields had been replaced (Table 3).
School grounds manager respondents to a 2021 survey that focused on the impact of the Connecticut school pesticide ban were asked if their school/town maintained any synthetic fields before 2010.
School grounds manager respondents to a 2021 survey that focused on the impact of the Connecticut school pesticide ban were asked if their town or school had replaced any natural grass fields with synthetic fields since 2010.
School grounds manager respondents to a 2021 survey that focused on the impact of the Connecticut school pesticide ban were asked how many natural grass fields have been replaced with synthetic fields since 2010.
To further analyze the driving factors that influenced the replacement of natural turfgrass fields with synthetic playing surfaces, a chi-square test was conducted. Replacement reasoning was categorized into four options: 1) the fields were unsafe and optimal quality could not be maintained; 2) parent and booster groups requested synthetic fields; 3) synthetic fields would require less maintenance and cost; and 4) the field use demand required the change (Table 4). The primary driving factor behind the replacement of natural turfgrass fields with synthetic turf was field use demand (94% of respondents), followed by an inability to maintain safe and quality fields (50%), a perception that synthetic fields would require less maintenance and cost (41%), and requests by parent and booster groups for synthetic fields (38%). Interestingly, there were no significant differences in reasoning for switching to synthetic fields for respondents that had synthetic fields before 2010 vs. those that switched after 2010 (field use demand, χ2 = 0.706, P = 0.401; maintain safety and quality fields, χ2 = 0.653, P = 0.419; less maintenance costs, χ2 = 0.653, P = 0.419; parent/booster groups, χ2 = 1.561, P = 0.212).
School grounds manager respondents to a 2021 survey that focused on the impact of the Connecticut school pesticide ban were asked why they replaced natural grass fields with synthetic fields. Respondents were allowed to select all answers that applied.
Field use demand is recognized as a promoting factor in transitions from natural turfgrass to synthetic surfaces in existing literature (Straw et al. 2022). According to Miller (2004), natural turfgrass fields are not able to maintain quality and consistency with excessive use of the field. Schools are also facing increased legal liabilities regarding injuries associated with poorly maintained fields; if fields are overused, then the likelihood of a player becoming injured due to poor conditions increases (Miller 2004). Ground conditions such as soil compaction and turfgrass quality, for example, may contribute to athlete injury occurrence (Straw et al. 2018; Walker and Walker 2022), although current injury literature has limitations (Straw et al. 2020).
Maintaining uniform, high quality playing surfaces presents challenges for school grounds managers without the use of pesticides (Bartholomew et al. 2015; Tomis et al. 2025b). Community sports field managers in a study by Yue et al. (2024) considered budgetary constraints, in addition to field use and scheduling, to be obstacles when managing both natural turfgrass and synthetic playing surfaces. While the cost to maintain synthetic fields may be comparable to that of natural turfgrass fields (Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute 2016), synthetic fields are not maintenance-free (STMA 2008). Municipal decision-makers may be operating off of limited information or inaccurate expectations regarding input requirements for synthetic systems (Braun et al. 2024; Straw et al. 2022).
Considering the results of the 2012 Connecticut pesticide ban study conducted by Bartholomew et al. (2015), we postulated that wealthier communities with means to finance new field installations would support cost implications associated with such construction and the decision to switch to a synthetic turf field with a greater expectation for improved playing surface quality and an extended season of play. We hypothesized that cities and towns with higher median incomes would be more likely to have a greater implementation of synthetic fields since the 2010 ban. However, the results of the t test showed that the household income of an area had little significance on the implementation of synthetic turf over natural turfgrass fields in that area (significant difference of 281 at P > 0.05). Rather, the population of a city or town had a greater impact on whether a town has switched from a natural turfgrass field to synthetic turf (significant difference of 964 at P > 0.05), aligning with the finding that the playing schedule demand is the most significant factor that impacts the implementation of an artificial synthetic field. In an area with a greater population density, the assumption can be made that a synthetic field would support an increase in use compared with a town with a smaller population. A direct correlation can be made between the population per square mile of an area and whether that area has installed a synthetic turf field since the 2010 pesticide ban.
Conclusions
School grounds managers have perceived field use demand as the primary driving factor behind transitions from natural to synthetic playing surfaces. However, there are other factors that may have contributed to these transitions, such as perceived concerns regarding safety and playing surface quality, perception of greater maintenance requirements associated with natural playing surfaces, and parent or booster group preferences. The increase in school grounds maintenance demand (Tomis et al. 2025a) and the decrease in school grounds quality observed post-ban (Tomis et al. 2025b) may also have contributed to the adoption of synthetic playing surfaces by Connecticut schools; however, more research is needed.
Population per square mile had a greater impact on the switch to a synthetic surface from natural turfgrass than the median level of household income. Although transitioning to synthetic turf requires a sizeable monetary input, the perceived reduction in maintenance and product input associated with field surface type may encourage school grounds managers struggling with increasing labor, supply, and equipment costs (Tomis et al. 2025b) to consider this alternative option. With more school grounds managers installing or managing synthetic turf fields, extension and research efforts must shift to educate school grounds managers properly about selection and maintenance of synthetic surfaces.
References cited
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.
Braun RC, Mandal P, Nwachukwu E, Stanton A. 2024. The role of turfgrasses in environmental protection and their benefits to humans: Thirty years later. Crop Sci. 64(6):2909–2944. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.21383.
Daviscourt BL, Kowalewski AR, Lambrinos JG, Eleveld B, Gould M. 2016. Cost and playability analysis of synthetic infill and natural grass in Oregon. SportsField Manage. https://sportsfieldmanagementonline.com/2016/09/29/cost-and-playability-analysis-of-synthetic-infill-and-natural-grass-in-or/8242/. [accessed 25 Jun 2024].
Devitt DA, Young MH, Baghzouz M, Bird BM. 2007. Surface temperature, heat loading and spectral reflectance of artificial turfgrass. J Turfgrass Sports Surf Sci. 83:68–82.
Fleming PR, Watts C, Forrester S. 2023. A new model of third generation artificial turf degradation, maintenance interventions and benefits. Proc Inst Mechan Eng Part P J Sports Eng Technol. 237(1):19–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337120961602.
Grubenhoff JA, du Ford K, Roosevelt GE. 2007. Heat-related illness. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 8(1):59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpem.2007.02.006.
Guillard K, Moore D, Oliver M, Vose S. 2018. Turfgrass cultural practices that maximize soil carbon sequestration, p 62–64. 2017 Annual Turfgrass Research Report [Connecticut].
Jastifer JR, McNitt AS, Mack CD, Kent RW, McCullough KA, Coughlin MJ, Anderson RB. 2019. Synthetic turf: History, design, maintenance, and athlete safety. Sports Health. 11(1):84–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738118793378.
Jim CW. 2017. Intense summer heat fluxes in artificial turf harm people and environment. Landscape Urban Plan. 157(2017):561–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.012.
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].
Law QD, Trappe JM, Jiang Y, Turco RF, Patton AJ. 2017. Turfgrass selection and grass clippings management influence soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics. Agron J. 109(4):1719–1725. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.05.0307.
Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute. 2016. Sports turf alternatives assessment: Preliminary results cost analysis. https://www.turi.org/content/download/10395/173557/file/Cost%20Artificial%20Turf.%20September%202016.pdf. [accessed 25 Jun 2024].
McNitt AS, Petrunak DM, Serensits TJ. 2008. Temperature amelioration of synthetic turf surfaces through irrigation. Proceedings of the Second Int Conf on Turfgrass Sci and Manage for Sports Fields. Acta Hortic. 783:573–582. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.783.59.
Miller GL. 2004. Athletic field use capacity (ENH 991). University of Florida IFAS Extension. https://journals.flvc.org/edis/article/view/114200/109511. [accessed 25 Jun 2024].
O’Leary F, Acampora N, Hand F, O’Donovan J. 2020. Association of artificial turf and concussion in competitive contact sports: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 6(1):e000695. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000695.
Qian Y, Follett RF, Kimble JM. 2010. Soil organic carbon input from urban turfgrasses. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 74(2):366–371. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0075.
Reasor EH. 2014. Synthetic turf surface temperature reduction and performance characteristics as affected by calcined clay modified infill (Master’s Thesis). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2750.
Serensits TJ, McNitt AS, Sorochan JC. 2013. Synthetic turf, p 179–217. In: Stier JC, Horgan BP, Bonos SA (eds). Turfgrass: Biology, use, and management. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Crop Science Society of America. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr56.c5.
Simon R. 2010. Review of the impacts of crumb rubber in artificial turf applications. University of California Berkeley Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability. https://escholarship.org/content/qt9zp430wp/qt9zp430wp.pdf. [accessed 25 Jun 2024].
Sports Turf Managers Association [STMA]. 2008. A guide to synthetic and natural turfgrass for sports fields: Selection, construction and maintenance considerations (2nd ed). https://www.stma.org/sites/stma/files/STMA_Synthetic_Guide_2nd_Edition.pdf. [accessed 25 Jun 2024 ].
State of Connecticut 2005. Public Act 5-252. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/ACT/Pa/pdf/2005PA-00252-R00SB-00916-PA.pdf. [accessed 25 Jun 2024].
Straw CM, McCullough BP, Segars C, Daher B, Patterson MS. 2022. Reimagining sustainable community sports fields of the future: A framework for convergent science-stakeholder decision-making. Circ Econ Sustain. 2(3):1267–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00115-z.
Straw CM, Samson CO, Henry GM, Brown CN. 2018. 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.
Straw CM, Samson CO, Henry GM, Brown CN. 2020. A review of turfgrass sports field variability and its implications on athlete–surface interactions. Agron J. 112(4):2401–2417. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20193.
Synthetic Turf Council. 2011. Synthetic turf 360°: A guide for today’s synthetic turf. https://www.synthetic-turf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/c322be_34608756a9d55c2612ebe5d50558d6f6.pdf. [accessed 25 Jun 2024].
Thoms AW. 2015. Sources of heat in synthetic turf systems (PhD Dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3475.
Thoms AW, Brosnan JT, Zidek JM, Sorochan JC. 2014. Models for predicting surface temperatures on synthetic turf playing surfaces. Procedia Eng. 72:895–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.153.
Tomis SM, Campbell BL, Henderson JJ, Siegel-Miles AJ, Wallace VH. 2025a. 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.
Tomis SM, Campbell BL, Henderson JJ, Wallace VH. 2025b. Impacts of the 2010 Connecticut school grounds pesticide ban a decade later: Part 2. Grounds quality.HortTechnology 35(3):274–280. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05588-24.
Walker EG, Walker KS. 2022. Using agronomic data to minimize the impact of field conditions on 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.
Williams S, Hume PA, Kara S. 2011. A review of football injuries on third and fourth generation artificial turfs compared with natural turf. Sports Med. 41(11):903–923. https://doi.org/10.2165/11593190-000000000-00000.
Yue C, Cui M, Straw C. 2024. Investigating the challenges of managing natural turfgrass and synthetic turf on community sports fields. HortScience. 59(7):887–895. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI17795-24.