Artificial Turf Literature Review

Consolidating Understandings around the Environmental and Ecological Implications of Artificial Turf Systems

Artificial turf (‘astroturf’) is marketed as offering a variety of benefits including ease-of-use, low maintenance and upkeep costs and improved water-management, that has positioned it as a widely utilised turfing solution. Its applications include recreation areas such as sporting fields and playgrounds, as well as private and commercial urban developments, such as backyards and sidewalk allotments. Installations generally contain a top-most synthetic layer which is interwoven into a backing which is dispersed with infill materials. Nonetheless, astroturf installations pose several significant ecosystem threats, including (1) environmental impacts from runoff pollutants and thermal characteristics, and (2) ecological consequences such as microbial diminishment, habitat and resource loss and urban fragmentations. Each of factors have implications upon broader sustainability and biodiversity, with astroturf emerging as a major contemporary challenge. This literature review synthesizes current scientific research and understandings around these major concerns and suggests specific directions to apply understandings towards stakeholder engagement.

(1) Environmental Impacts:

Commencing, astroturf comprise various synthetic materials, including plastic backings (i.e., polyethylene and polypropylene) and infill materials (i.e., crumb rubber) which generate microplastic and chemical pollutants, as well as thermal implications. Foremost, the pollutant potential of astroturf is notable given case-uses entail several characteristics – such as abrasive activities (i.e., running), high water and UV exposures, and distinct maintenance practices – known to accelerate material degradation (Harusato & Kato. 2025). Herein, a single field of astroturf can release up to 300 million plastic fibres annually (KIMO 2017). These fibres – alongside further volatile contaminants – are easily mobilised by storm events which enable their widespread dispersal into larger water-networks (de Haan et al. 2023). Subsequently, these leachates can contain dangerous compositions – including heavy metals, such as mercury, zinc and lead, as well as synthetic chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – that carry neurotoxicant, carcinogenic, mutagenic and endocrine disrupting potentials (Cheng et al., 2014; Murphy & Warner 2022; Ryan-Ndegwa et al. 2024). Subsequently, astroturf exposes local water to substantial and volatile pollutants that threaten water quality and safety; endangering aquatic biota and likening toxic trophic distributions and bioaccumulations across wider spatial scales and ecological networks (Kumar et al. 2023). Notably, most natural growths are non-toxics and physiologically inert (beyond anthropogenic applications like fertiliser and pesticide), meaning astroturf uniquely offers these volatile exposures. Advancing, astroturf installations demonstrate shocking thermal properties which increases surface temperatures, escalates fire-risks, and contributes to urban heat-island microclimate effects. Several characteristics of astroturf installations – including dark infill materials which absorb solar radiation, synthetic polymers which store heat, backings which inhibit surfacesoil moisture and temperature exchanges, and absence of evapotranspirative functionality (PSU n.d.) – result in significantly hotter surface temperatures. Research indicates the thermal profile of astroturf consistently surpasses that of grass, with maximum differences of 36.5°C and temperatures reaching up to 90°C (Singh et al. 2024; Jim 2017; Liu & Jim 2021; Baker 2018). Subsequently, these instalments – which comprise petroleum-based plastics – not only threaten consumer safety and enjoyment but also entail high-thermal and lowignition potentials, instigating fire hazards which could result in the aeration of highly volatile compounds (NSW Govt. 2022). Continuing, these thermal implications also contribute to urban heat-island effects, wherein urbanised infrastructures (i.e., roads) and activities (i.e., driving) remove natural temperature-regulating services (i.e., floral evapotranspiration) and intensify thermal production, absorption and retention, potentiating substantially hotter urban microclimates. Herein, replacing vegetated landscapes with synthetic astroturf surfaces would inhibit surface-substrate heat-transfers and evaporative cooling, increasing urbanised thermal loads and exacerbating broadly distressing microclimatic alterations.

(2) Ecological Assessments:

• Progressing, astroturf installations may liken ecological harms to both micro and macro communities. Firstly, astroturf may diminish the diversity of soil microbiome compositions, which is a cornerstone of well-functioning ecosystems. Soil microbiology is pivotal in critical ecosystem functions including nutrient cycles, soil stabilisation, and decomposition processes, and important to plant-soil feedbacks like carbon sequestration (photosynthesis), nitrogen fixation, stress tolerance, and pathogen resistance (Dubey et al. 2020). Herein, artificial installations (i.e., astroturf) introduce physical barriers which prevent surface-soil interactions like gas, moisture, and organic exchanges, potentiating alterations in soil’s biochemical properties. These soil alterations endanger the richness and functional diversity of microbial communities that provision enzymatic activities important to plant growth, with research indicating potentially enduring implications on long-term microspecies compositions that engender implications for future soil functionality and fertility (Hartmann et al. 2014). Advancing, astroturf installations endanger wider ecological communities through reducing habitable urban spaces. Foremost, access to and between numerous habitats and their resources is essential to animal ecologies’ dispersal, survival and reproduction. Herein, urban ‘green spaces’ (i.e., grass fields and nature allotments) act as vegetated refuges that provide imperative natural provisions for urban-living native species (Aronson et al. 2014; Goddard et al. 2010) including paramount bee populations (McFrederick & LeBuhn 2006). These microenvironments enable plant growths – which are rooted in soil microbiomes – which produce the quintessential food-resources which underpin all higher-level nutritional networks (Van Der Heijden et al. 2008). Furthermore, planted areas offer unique micro and nano habitats which enable niche and resource partitions that inspire and support unique species as well as reduce intra and interspecies competitions, benefitting wider survival and reproductive likelihoods (Cervantes et al. 20233). As such, astroturf instalments threaten imperative microenvironmental contributions which help the diversity and stability of urban ecologies. Continuing, astroturf utilisations also exacerbate already prevalent urban habitat fragmentations by conditioning greater habitat isolation and spatial segregation, engendering major biodiversity losses and ecological disruptions. Herein, urban habitat fragmentations potentiate dispersal deaths (i.e., from vehicles or cats) and isolate vulnerable populations from important grounds, resources and breeding opportunities, increasing competitions and obstructing gene-flows that contribute to genetic diversity and species resilience (as well as likening deleterious inbreeding mutations) (Alejandra et al. 2020; Nisi et al. 2023). Avian research indicates implementations of astroturf interrupt green corridors, diminishing the habitats and resources of plant and insect populations, causing reductions in sites carrying capacity – which remain impoverished, absent compensatory density effects – and bird biodiversity losses of up to 35.7% (Sánchez-Sotomayor et al. 2023). As such, natural urban sites offer microbiologically rich soils, propagating microenvironments that provide urban populations with habitats, resources, and dispersal opportunities that are essential to sustain urban ecological biodiversity, and which astroturf landscapes are incapable of provisioning. Conclusions & Applications: Summarily, astroturf is a multifaceted problem which engenders several deleterious implications that widely impact terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric ecosystems. These include environmental threats from microplastic pollution, chemical leaching, and thermal characteristics, as well as ecological detriments including microbiological deterioration, habitat destruction and fragmentation. These implications operate across wide spatial scales and potentiate harm upon human, marine, microbial, terrestrial and aviary species. As such, astroturf as a broad and major threat to ecosystem sustainability, functionality, and biodiversity. These understandings underscore the necessity for careful deliberations around astroturf applications and emphasise the importance of utilising ecologically sustainable alternatives such as natural floral landscaping. Subsequently, the research compiled in this report should be applied towards broader stakeholder engagement strategies and consultations, with some suggestions offered below:
• Councils and Political Offices:
  • Emphasise pollutant ramifications to encourage policy governing acceptable astroturf applications
  • Leverage ecological benefits of natural green spaces against astroturf within advocacy towards sustainable towards sustainable urban greening practices
  • Suggestions may include funding/tax incentives to support green infrastructure and natural landscaping projects
• Educational Institutions:
  • Provide information about pollutants & risks associated with astroturf installations
  • Promote nature-based play areas which foster environmental stewardship and avoid toxic developmental exposures
  • Demonstrate the health advantages and educational benefits of natural green spaces to increase astroturf resistance in schools.
• Environmental Groups:
  • Utilise research to raise awareness of pollution and biodiversity implications
  • Inspire collective activations directed at ensuring conservation of natural urban sites
  • Encourage community-driven astroturf removal projects & lobbying for natural landscape developments
• Developers & Architects:
  • Increase awareness about the biodiversity costs of astroturf & ecological importance of natural developments within urban settings
  • Encourage incorporation of biodiversity-positive design in landscape architecture
  • Attenuate to long-term sustainability & positive public sentiment around natural developments
• Sports & Recreation Centres:
  • Provide information on thermal background of astroturf, including potential fire hazards associated with increased temperatures
  • Highlight deleterious exposures & accelerated material degradation within high-use contexts
  • Advise on alternative turfing options that balance sporting functionality with natural green design
• Individuals & Local Communities:
  • Translate scientific findings into accessible public messaging that highlight the harms of astroturf and benefits of natural systems
  • Personalise findings to enhance individual understandings & deepen connectivity to astroturf prevention
  • Contextualise recommendations & provide clear responsive directions to foster improved engagement & enhance response effectiveness
  • Incorporate research within grassroot campaigns opposing astroturf installations

References:

• Alejandra V. González, Valeria Gómez‐Silva, María José Ramírez, & Francisco E. Fontúrbel. (2020). Meta‐analysis of the differential effects of habitat fragmentation and degradation on plant genetic diversity. Conservation Biology, 34(3), 711–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13422
• Aronson, M. F. J., La Sorte, F. A., Nilon, C. H., Katti, M., Goddard, M. A., Lepczyk, C. A., Warren, P. S., Williams, N. S. G., Cilliers, S., Clarkson, B., Dobbs, C., Dolan, R., Hedblom, M., Klotz, S., Kooijmans, J. L., Kühn, I., MacGregor-Fors, I., McDonnell, M., Mörtberg, U., … Winter, M. (2014). A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological Sciences, 281(1780), 20133330–20133330. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3330
• Baker. J., (2018). ‘Really shocked’: Playground surfaces can hit 90 degrees in summer. Sydney Morning Herald. Available at https://www.smh.com.au/education/burn-baby-burnplayground-surfaces-hit-90-degrees-in-summer-20181109-p50f41.html [accessed 17/5/2025]
• Cervantes, A. M., Schooley, R. L., Lehrer, E. W., Gallo, T., Allen, M. L., Fidino, M., & Magle, S. B. (2023). Carnivore coexistence in Chicago: niche partitioning of coyotes and red foxes. Urban Ecosystems, 26(5), 1293–1307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01368-2
• Cheng, H., Hu, Y., & Reinhard, M. (2014). Environmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(4), 2114–2129. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4044193
• de Haan, W. P., Quintana, R., Vilas, C., Cózar, A., Canals, M., Uviedo, O., & Sanchez-Vidal, A. (2023). The dark side of artificial greening: Plastic turfs as widespread pollutants of aquatic environments. Environmental Pollution (1987), 334, 122094–122094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094
• Dubey, R. K., Tripathi, V., Prabha, R., Chaurasia, R., Singh, D. P., Rao, Ch. S., El-Keblawy, A., & Abhilash, P. C. (2020). Unravelling the Soil Microbiome : Perspectives For Environmental Sustainability (1st ed. 2020.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15516-2
• Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., & Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Amsterdam), 25(2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
• Kommunernes International Miljøorganisation (‘KIMO’). (2017). Microplastic Pollution from Artificial Grass – A Field Guide. Kimointernational. Available at https://www.kimointernational.org/feature/microplastic-pollution-from-artificial-grass-afield-guide/ [accessed 21/5/2025]
• Kumar, A., Yu, Z.-G., & Thakur, T. K. (2023). Microplastic pollutants in terrestrial and aquatic environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 30(49), 107296–107299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29210-4
• Harusato, A., & Kato, M. (2025). Mechanisms of Generation and Ecological Impacts of Nano- and Microplastics from Artificial Turf Systems in Sports Facilities. Environments (Basel, Switzerland), 12(4), 109-. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12040109
• Hartmann, M., Niklaus, P. A., Zimmermann, S., Schmutz, S., Kremer, J., Abarenkov, K., Lüscher, P., Widmer, F., & Frey, B. (2014). Resistance and resilience of the forest soil microbiome to logging-associated compaction. The ISME Journal, 8(1), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.141
• Jim, C. Y. (2017). Intense summer heat fluxes in artificial turf harm people and environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.012
• Liu Z, Jim CY (2021) Playing on natural or artificial turf sports field? Assessing heat stress of children, young athletes, and adults in Hong Kong. Sustain Cities Soc 75:103271. https://doi-org.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103271
• Murphy, M., & Warner, G. R. (2022). Health impacts of artificial turf: Toxicity studies, challenges, and future directions. Environmental Pollution (1987), 310, 119841–119841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119841
• McFrederick, Q. S., & LeBuhn, G. (2006). Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biological Conservation, 129(3), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.004
• NSW Govt. (2022) Independent review into the design, use and impacts of synthetic turf in public open spaces. Chief Scientist & Engineer. Available at: https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/542263/CSE-SyntheticTurf-Review-Final-Report.pdf [accessed 14/5/2025]
• Nisi, A. C., Benson, J. F., King, R., & Wilmers, C. C. (2023). Habitat fragmentation reduces survival and drives source–sink dynamics for a large carnivore. Ecological Applications, 33(4), e2822-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2822
• Penn State University (‘PSU’). (n.d.). Surface Temperature of Synthetic Turf. Penn States Centre for Sports Surface Research. Available at: https://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/ssrc/documents/temperature.pdf [accessed 17/5/2025]
• Pfautsch. S., Wujeska-Klause. A., (2022). Synthetic Turf in Public Spaces: Systematic Assessment of Surface Temperatures and Associated Environmental Impacts. Western Sydney University. https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1995857/Synthetic_Turf_in_ Public_Places.pdf
• Ryan-Ndegwa, S., Zamani, R., & Martins, T. (2024). [Rev. of Exploring the Human Health Impact of Artificial Turf Worldwide: A Systematic Review]. Environmental Health Insights, 18, 11786302241306291-. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241306291
• Sánchez-Sotomayor, D., Martín-Higuera, A., Gil-Delgado, J. A., Gálvez, Á., & BernatPonce, E. (2023). Artificial grass in parks as a potential new threat for urban bird communities. Bird Conservation International, 33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270922000119
• Singh, G., Peterson, B., Jay, O., & Stevens, C. J. (2024). The effect of synthetic grass sports surfaces on the thermal environment: A systematic review. International Journal of Biometeorology, 68(7), 1235–1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-024-02679-5
• van der Heijden, M. G. A., Bardgett, R. D., & van Straalen, N. M. (2008). unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 11(3), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x

How to get involved

There are many ways we can all contribute to the global effort for cleaner oceans! Contact us here to find out how you can get involved on our mission for cleaner oceans.

CONTACT US