Life cycle assessment of football fields in Nordic climates: Comparing artificial and natural turf systems

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.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Cleaner Environmental Systems
Published
2025-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2025.100369
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Sports injuries and prevention
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.72
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Life cycle assessment of football fields in Nordic climates: Comparing artificial and natural turf systems

Patrik Thollander, Roozbeh Feiz, Emma Lindkvist, Mikael Säberg
1 citations
Cleaner Environmental Systems
Sports injuries and prevention
1.72
article

Life cycle assessment of football fields in Nordic climates: Comparing artificial and natural turf systems

Patrik Thollander, Roozbeh Feiz, Emma Lindkvist, Mikael Säberg
article en
1 citations

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.

Cleaner Environmental SystemsVol. 19
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Sports injuries and prevention
1.72
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Life cycle assessment of football fields in Nordic climates: Comparing artificial and natural turf systems — Patrik Thollander, Roozbeh Feiz, et al. · Cleaner Environmental Systems (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS