In the heart of the Nordic countries, where the climate is as tough as the football played on its pitches, a groundbreaking study is challenging the environmental status quo of sports facilities. Mikael Säberg, a researcher from the Department of Management and Engineering at Linköping University, has turned his attention to the often-overlooked environmental impacts of football fields, publishing his findings in the journal ‘Cleaner Environmental Systems’—a publication focused on sustainable environmental solutions.
Säberg’s research, which compares the life cycle environmental impacts of artificial and natural turf football fields, reveals a complex picture. “We often think about the environmental impacts of big industries, but sports facilities are a silent contributor,” Säberg explains. His study, which evaluates global warming potential, eutrophication, and ecotoxicity, among other factors, shows that natural turf has a higher overall environmental impact over its operational lifespan compared to artificial turf.
The findings are particularly relevant for the energy sector, as the study highlights the significant emissions generated during the construction phase of artificial turf, primarily from material production. “During the construction phase, artificial turf generated significant emissions,” Säberg notes. However, the story doesn’t end there. The study also found that artificial turf’s environmental impact can be mitigated through effective recycling and energy recovery strategies.
The use phase of natural turf showed the greatest impacts, largely due to diesel consumption and fertilizer application. This is where the energy sector can play a pivotal role. By substituting conventional maintenance equipment with electric robotic alternatives, the overall environmental impact can be reduced. Moreover, sourcing turf materials locally can further decrease the environmental footprint.
The end-of-life stage of artificial turf also presents opportunities for the energy sector. Currently, the sand and infill of artificial turf are reused, while the turf carpet and shock pad are incinerated for energy recovery. However, without recycling, artificial turf could represent the highest environmental burden among the evaluated alternatives.
Säberg’s research is set to shape future developments in the field, prompting a rethink of how we design, maintain, and dispose of football fields. As the climate crisis accelerates, the findings offer a roadmap for creating more sustainable sports facilities, with the energy sector playing a crucial role in driving this change.
The study, published in ‘Cleaner Environmental Systems’—translated to English as ‘Cleaner Environmental Systems’—provides a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of football fields in Nordic climates. It serves as a wake-up call for the sports and energy sectors, highlighting the need for innovative solutions to reduce the environmental footprint of football facilities. As Säberg puts it, “It’s not just about the game; it’s about the impact we leave behind.”