Mikael Säberg , Emma Lindkvist , Roozbeh Feiz , Patrik Thollander
{"title":"Life cycle assessment of football fields in Nordic climates: Comparing artificial and natural turf systems","authors":"Mikael Säberg , Emma Lindkvist , Roozbeh Feiz , Patrik Thollander","doi":"10.1016/j.cesys.2025.100369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Sport is more than just a game—it's a global phenomenon that shapes cultures, economies, and communities. Football, the world's most popular sport, is a prime example. Yet beneath the surface lies an overlooked environmental cost. As the climate crisis accelerates, the sprawling network of football facilities—stadiums, training grounds, and infrastructure—emerges as a silent contributor to environmental degradation and the transgression of planetary boundaries. Two common types of fields exist: artificial and natural turf. Research on environmental impacts of these turfs remains limited, especially in cold climates. This study presents a life cycle assessment of 1 m<sup>2</sup> artificial and natural football turfs in Nordic climates, evaluating their environmental impacts such as global warming potential, eutrophication potential and ecotoxicity potential across construction, use, maintenance, and end-of-life phases over operational lifespans of 10, 20 and 30 years. Natural turf exhibited the highest overall environmental impacts over the operational lifespan, e.g. the global warming potential was 30.6 kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m<sup>2</sup> while the artificial turf reached 15.6 kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m<sup>2</sup>. During the construction phase, artificial turf generated significant emissions, mainly from material production. In the use phase, natural turf showed the greatest impacts due to diesel consumption and fertilizer application. At the end-of-life stage, artificial turf's sand and infill were reused, while the turf carpet and shock pad were incinerated for energy recovery. However, without recycling, artificial turf would represent the highest environmental burden among the evaluated alternatives. Implementing effective recycling and energy recovery strategies is essential to mitigate its environmental impact. Furthermore, sourcing turf materials locally, combined with substituting conventional maintenance equipment with electric robotic alternatives, can further reduce overall environmental impacts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34616,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Environmental Systems","volume":"19 ","pages":"Article 100369"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Environmental Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789425001151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Sport is more than just a game—it's a global phenomenon that shapes cultures, economies, and communities. Football, the world's most popular sport, is a prime example. Yet beneath the surface lies an overlooked environmental cost. As the climate crisis accelerates, the sprawling network of football facilities—stadiums, training grounds, and infrastructure—emerges as a silent contributor to environmental degradation and the transgression of planetary boundaries. Two common types of fields exist: artificial and natural turf. Research on environmental impacts of these turfs remains limited, especially in cold climates. This study presents a life cycle assessment of 1 m2 artificial and natural football turfs in Nordic climates, evaluating their environmental impacts such as global warming potential, eutrophication potential and ecotoxicity potential across construction, use, maintenance, and end-of-life phases over operational lifespans of 10, 20 and 30 years. Natural turf exhibited the highest overall environmental impacts over the operational lifespan, e.g. the global warming potential was 30.6 kg CO2 eq/m2 while the artificial turf reached 15.6 kg CO2 eq/m2. During the construction phase, artificial turf generated significant emissions, mainly from material production. In the use phase, natural turf showed the greatest impacts due to diesel consumption and fertilizer application. At the end-of-life stage, artificial turf's sand and infill were reused, while the turf carpet and shock pad were incinerated for energy recovery. However, without recycling, artificial turf would represent the highest environmental burden among the evaluated alternatives. Implementing effective recycling and energy recovery strategies is essential to mitigate its environmental impact. Furthermore, sourcing turf materials locally, combined with substituting conventional maintenance equipment with electric robotic alternatives, can further reduce overall environmental impacts.
体育不仅仅是一项游戏——它是一种塑造文化、经济和社区的全球现象。足球,世界上最受欢迎的运动,就是一个最好的例子。然而,在表面之下隐藏着被忽视的环境成本。随着气候危机的加剧,庞大的足球设施网络——体育场、训练场和基础设施——成为环境恶化和地球边界越界的无声贡献者。有两种常见的草坪:人造草坪和天然草坪。关于这些草皮对环境影响的研究仍然有限,特别是在寒冷气候下。本研究对北欧气候下的1平方米人造和天然足球草皮进行了生命周期评估,评估了其在建设、使用、维护和使用寿命结束阶段的环境影响,如全球变暖潜力、富营养化潜力和生态毒性潜力,使用寿命为10年、20年和30年。在使用寿命期内,天然草坪对环境的总体影响最大,全球变暖潜势为30.6 kg CO2 eq/m2,而人造草坪达到15.6 kg CO2 eq/m2。在施工阶段,人造草坪产生了大量的排放,主要来自材料生产。在使用阶段,天然草坪受柴油消耗和化肥施用的影响最大。在使用寿命结束阶段,人造草坪的沙子和填充物被重复利用,而草坪地毯和减震垫则被焚烧以回收能量。然而,如果不进行回收利用,人造草坪将是所评估替代品中环境负担最重的。实施有效的再循环和能源回收战略对于减轻其对环境的影响至关重要。此外,在当地采购草坪材料,再加上用电动机器人替代传统的维护设备,可以进一步减少对整体环境的影响。