By Chengyan Yue, Ph.D., and Chase Straw, Ph.D.
Sports fields – whether in a neighborhood park, school campus or public recreation area – are essential components of community recreation, and play a crucial role in promoting well-being and fostering community cohesion and social inclusion. However, managing and maintaining these fields presents challenges for administrators and managers, particularly when it comes to deciding between natural turfgrass and synthetic turf. Each field type presents its unique set of challenges – from costs to maintenance demands. In a recent preliminary study, we investigated the multifaceted challenges of community-level sports field management, providing key insights and suggesting actionable strategies to effectively address these challenges.
National survey
We conducted an online survey targeting community sports fields managers and administrators in the United States during 2022-2023. In total, 327 people responded to the survey, with 97 of them completing all questions, 95 working with natural turfgrass fields, 21 working with synthetic turf fields and 19 working with both natural turfgrass and synthetic turf fields. In the survey, we asked administrators and managers to select the top three challenges for both natural turfgrass and synthetic turf fields from a list of options. They were also asked to select the potential solutions to overcome the biggest challenges.
Main findings
Figure 1 (above) shows the percentage of top three challenges faced by natural turfgrass field managers and administrators. The primary challenge was budget constraints, with 32% ranking it as the biggest challenge and 25% as the second-biggest challenge. Use/scheduling was also a common challenge, identified as the top challenge by 26% of the participants, the second-biggest challenge by 19%, and the third-biggest challenge by 22%. Weather/climate was another prevalent challenge, with 18% ranking it the biggest challenge, 12% as the second, and 22% as the third.
Other challenges were ranked lower. For example, communication with users was chosen as the second challenge by 12% and the third challenge by 20%. Agronomic problems, which is a challenge specific to natural turfgrass fields, were ranked as the top challenge by 5%, the second challenge by 9% and the third challenge by 10%. Lack of administrative support was ranked by 5% as the top challenge, 8% as the second and 10% as the third. Construction problems were considered the top challenge by 5%, the second challenge by 7% and the third challenge by 12%. Other challenges, mainly related to the lack of labor, were also mentioned by participants.
Budget constraints were also identified as a big challenge for participants working with synthetic turf fields (see Figure 2), with 19% ranking it as the biggest challenge and 35% as the third biggest challenge. Moreover, use/scheduling was identified by 29% as the biggest challenge, 15% as the second biggest challenge and 24% as the third challenge. The other challenges mainly revolved around safety issues, and were identified by 14% of participants as the top challenge, 35% as the second biggest challenge and 12% as the third biggest challenge. Lack of administrative support was mentioned by 25% as the second biggest challenge. Additionally, construction problems were noteworthy, ranked as the biggest challenge by 24%, and the third challenge by 12%. Communication with users was identified by 10% as the biggest challenge and 10% as the second-biggest challenge. Weather/climate was ranked lower compared to all other challenges.
Figure 3 shows participants’ opinions on potential solutions to overcome the biggest challenges. For participants managing the natural turfgrass fields, approximately 55% believed that having more money for resources and implementing field reconstruction could help address the biggest challenge in managing natural turfgrass fields. Moreover, allocating longer recovery time or having better scheduling was indicated by 42% of participants as a potential solution. Fewer participants considered the remaining options, such as receiving more support (25%), adopting synthetic turf (18%), providing more information to justify needs (16%) and other solutions – such as having more fields (3%) – as potential solutions. Approximately 2% of participants indicated that they perceived no viable solution to address the identified challenge.
The potential solutions differ among participants who manage the synthetic turf fields as shown in Figure 4. The majority (43%) identified having more money for resources as a potential solution, followed by having better scheduling (23%) and having more support (23%). Moreover, 19% of participants considered having more information to justify needs and implanting field reconstruction could help address the challenges. Approximately 19% expressed that there was no viable solution to address the identified challenge (much higher than that for natural turfgrass). Additionally, 9% suggested other solutions, such as expanding and adding more synthetic turf to prevent rapid wear on existing fields.
Takeaways
Budget constraints
One of the most pressing issues encountered by administrators is budget constraints. With limited financial resources, ensuring the upkeep of sports fields becomes challenging. Both natural turfgrass and synthetic turf fields require significant investments, whether for maintenance, repair or replacement. Although synthetic turf eliminates the need for ongoing inputs like fertilizers and herbicides, the initial installation costs can be prohibitive, and labor is required for routine management such as grooming infill, vacuuming debris and using a magnet to remove harmful metal objects as part of comprehensive maintenance. On the other hand, natural turfgrass fields demand continuous care, including irrigation, mowing and pest control – all of which incur expenses. To address budget challenges, administrators can explore alternative funding sources, engage in community-driven fundraising efforts, and seek partnerships with local businesses and organizations.
Use/scheduling
Use/scheduling is a top challenge for both natural grass and synthetic turf fields. To address the challenge, administrators can implement a reservation system for efficient booking and resource allocation. Clear usage policies should be established to manage field access and minimize conflicts among user groups. Collaboration with stakeholders and flexible scheduling arrangements can help prioritize seasonal demand and optimize field usage. Regular monitoring, enforcement of usage regulations, and periodic reviews of scheduling practices can ensure fair access and enhance the overall user experience on sports fields.
Safety concerns
Safety concerns, particularly related to injury rates and exposure to harmful substances, are also at the forefront of community sports field management challenges. Although synthetic turf fields offer durability and near-constant usability in various weather conditions, they are associated with a higher risk of heat-related injuries. Additionally, there are concerns about potential exposure to harmful substances found in synthetic turf infill materials. Addressing those safety concerns requires a holistic approach, including exploring cooling technologies to mitigate elevated temperatures and conducting thorough assessments of synthetic turf composition to ensure user safety.
Weather and climate
Weather and climate present another set of challenges for field managers. Natural turfgrass is sensitive to environmental conditions, with extreme temperatures, heavy rain and drought all impacting field usability and recovery time. In contrast, synthetic turf fields offer greater resilience to adverse weather but can become uncomfortably hot during prolonged exposure to sunlight. By adopting weather-responsive maintenance plans, implementing smart irrigation systems, rotating field usage to allow for recovery, utilizing appropriate turfgrass species and cultivars, and investing in drainage, administrators can mitigate the impact of weather-related challenges and ensure optimal playing conditions year-round.
Effective management of community sports fields requires a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and a proactive approach to addressing them. By implementing targeted strategies, leveraging community partnerships and embracing technological advancements, administrators and managers can ensure the sustainability and quality of sports fields for generations to come.
It is important to note that our study is preliminary with a relatively low sample size. As we move forward, our next step will be to expand the scope of our research, not only by gathering more responses but also by collecting more detailed information, ensuring a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Chengyan Yue, Ph.D., is a professor, Department of Horticultural Science and Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Dr. Yue holds the Bachman Endowed Chair in Horticultural Marketing, and specializes in studying stakeholders’ preferences for horticultural products and international trade.
Chase Straw, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Turfgrass Science at Texas A&M University. He serves on the SFMA Board of Directors as the academic director and is chair of the SFMA Education Committee.
References:
Yue, C., M. Cui and C. Straw. 2024. Investigating the challenges in natural turfgrass and synthetic turf management for community sports fields. Accepted by HortScience.
