PGMS Member Area > PGMS Knowledge Center

By François Hébert
Landscape Architect, Design and Solutions Sports Surfaces

Synthetic turf grass technology has evolved tremendously
over the years. It has gotten to the point where it rivals natural turf in the hearts of many users and sports turf managers. National and international governing bodies are starting to accept these surfaces for officially sanctioned games, which is a sure sign that this technology is steadily gaining ground.
There is a heated debate in the sports turf industry between promoters of this technology and their opponents. Synthetic turf company literature hails its many virtues while critics question its safety and other aspects, which are admittedly very poorly documented by independent and unbiased sources.

One important aspect of the debate is the issue of cost. Construction costs for synthetic turf surfaces are prohibitive and weigh heavily in the cost/benefit balance. Last year, a municipality in Quebec, Canada, was considering the construction of 10 synthetic turf soccer fields. A study it had commissioned had arrived at the conclusion that the construction of these 10 fields, combined with the rehabilitation of its existing natural playing surfaces, would satisfy the municipality’s needs for the next 10 years, as well as allow the reduction of the usage hours of its natural fields to a point where they could be maintained in an acceptable state.

The only hitch was that the project’s overall implementation cost made the plan appear totally preposterous and very difficult to justify. I was then commissioned to explore the economic aspects of synthetic turf in comparison with three types of natural turf and to determine if the benefits of this technology outweighed, or at least equalled, its simple construction costs. The study employed actual bid costs for the locality to factor in things like irrigation and lighting costs. Finally, I analyzed useage limits over 10 years under both conservative and optimal conditions.

A condensed version of this study is available to PGMS members online at
www.pgms.org/members/TurfUsageCostComparativeStudy.pdf.

Rather than limit itself solely to construction costs, the study explores usage costs, integrating expenses that are often overlooked in such reports. The construction, maintenance and operation costs used in this study are specific to a particular market and must be adjusted if this methodology is to be applied elsewhere. Also, the usage schedule and calendar are dictated by a cold climate marked by usually cold and wet falls, extremely cold and snowy winters and late springs.

It’s important to keep in mind that this study was not conducted with promoting synthetic turf as an objective. This should not be seen as an endorsement of this technology. Many relevant issues remain unaddressed, both in this study and by the industry in general. This study merely proposes one way of considering the choices that are available to the people concerned with sports turf issues. It remains up to them to explore the question through the angles that best suit their needs and preoccupations.

A condensed version of this study is available to PGMS members online at
www.pgms.org/members/TurfUsageCostComparativeStudy.pdf.