When called to choose among the various types of highly accessible grass playing fields, the evaluation can be complex and lead to costly mistakes if one is not aware of the latest environmental regulations and the increasing costs of disposing of non-recyclable plastic waste. A sustainable field must have a significantly positive impact on at least one of the six environmental objectives, not harm the other five, and uphold minimum social guarantees.
POWERgrass combines performance and sustainability
Natural grass fields are part of the Equipped Public Green Area (EPGA) and must do their part in mitigating the impact of excessive building on the environment. It is undeniable that natural fields on agricultural lands cannot contribute much to the environment if they are heavily used and poorly maintained. A key indicator regards the limit of playing hours which, depending on the climate and type of soil, can vary from 4 to 8 weekly hours that the field can withstand with modest maintenance; otherwise, mud forms and the field soon becomes unplayable and full of dangerous holes.
The lack of culture and economic resources for maintenance and the excessive load of play on some fields convinced investors that building synthetic fields with rubber infill was the best solution to all field management problems. Removing youngsters from fields degraded by mud, public opinion also became convinced that playing on synthetic fields was the best solution for the youth, but professional players have repeatedly expressed themselves against them for game safety reasons. It's very difficult to understand the safety issue on synthetic fields, and the debate has been ongoing for years, but what's certain is that a growing number of professional players now prefer well-maintained hybrid natural fields. Since 2012, numerous fields with hybrid systems have received positive feedback from professional players, and today there are few effective hybrid systems when the number of playing hours ranges between 20 and 30 weekly.
Meanwhile, with the recent update of the REACH standard, rubber infill from synthetic fields will no longer be allowed starting from October 17, 2031. Moreover, starting in 2021, a ban on the export of ecotoxic plastics to third-world countries, which lack adequate waste management protocols, was introduced. This regulation resulted in a significant increase in disposal costs for removed synthetic field infills, an effect already felt in 2022. Lastly, environmental objectives have become part of the procurement code and consequently must be an integral part of every future public and private work.
In other words, each project must demonstrate having made the most effective choice with the least possible environmental impact, which in the best case does not significantly harm any of the environmental objectives and possibly becomes sustainable. Obviously, where no other solutions are available, necessary compensatory works will need to be included during the development of the project's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The “Taxonomy for sustainable finance,” was developed to promote private sector investments in green and sustainable projects as well as to contribute to achieving the European Green Deal's goals (climate neutrality by 2050).
THE VALUE OF MONITORING AND REPORTING
To assess the effectiveness of interventions, it is necessary to collect data and monitor results before the design phase, throughout the construction phase, and subsequently during the usage and maintenance phase, thus it is necessary to identify the most relevant sustainability indicators and have tools to:
Before using SBR rubber as infill in synthetic turf fields, three different factors need to be evaluated, which will inevitably tip the balance toward a different choice:
Tab. 2 Concentration of metals released from SBR granules.
Element and dimensions |
Concentration (mg·L−1) |
Limits (WHO, Environmental criteria 221) |
|
24 hours |
21 days |
||
B (249.77 nm) |
0 |
0.231 |
0.5 |
Ba (455.40 nm) |
0.021 |
0.056 |
0.7 |
Fe (259.94 nm) |
0 |
0.059 |
- |
Mn (257.61 nm) |
0 |
0.113 |
0.4 |
Si (251.61 nm) |
0 |
2.271 |
- |
Zn (206.20 nm) |
0.273 |
7.041 |
3 |